« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/11/2010

Does my love upset anti-LGBTs? Yes, periodically

by Jeremy Hooper
"I may not always agree with the lifestyles and life choices made by all the people featured in every publication I read, but I do not appreciate picking up my favorite magazine to see photographs of homosexual couples being affectionate. For someone who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, such articles and/or photos are offensive – and something I certainly would never knowingly pay money for."

As one who covers every last in, out, and gnat fart to squeak forth from this so-called "culture war," this writer is very used to hearing nonsense like the above. However, when the passionate judgement is personally targeted to my own wedding and its inclusion in the latest issue of Martha Stewart Weddings, it takes on a whole new personal weight.

G-A-Y friend Alvin McEwen has a great post on who said it, why they're so angry, what they're saying to wash their hands clean of their hurtful stance, and what you can do to resist the resistance:

Prelude to controversy - SOMEONE is not happy over Martha Stewart's focus on gay wedding [HB&HM]

201001110931

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Offensive? It's offensive when someone treats my existence and my love and my friends and their love as if we're "offensive" and should be hidden away from delicate eyes. It's offensive to be told that this aspect of who we are means that we shouldn't be seen or heard. It's offensive when people seek to exile us from the public sphere, all in the name of satisfying unnecessary prejudice.

The only thing offensive here is that someone would want to impose all this on their fellow human beings for no good reason at all.

Posted by: ZJ | Jan 11, 2010 9:38:21 AM

Something Barefoot Bride and many other conservatives don't understand is this: the marketing people at Martha Stewart Living, Pepsi, Coke, and every other company on that HRC list have made the conscious decision to be pro-equality.

And they do so with the full knowledge that doing so will tick off a piece of the market and they could very well lose business over it. It's called Market Segmentation and it's Marketing 101. These companies have weighed the options (very carefully) and decided that there is more money to be made being pro-equality than by serving these people's social agenda.

I'd like to remind Barefoot Bride and her associates that the world doesn't revolve around them and these companies have a right to pick and choose who they cater to. And if it means they decide not to cater to you, well, tough titties.

Posted by: DN | Jan 11, 2010 9:40:52 AM

The Barefoot Bride is getting some blowback for her views.

Heh.

We win.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 11, 2010 11:02:35 AM

In anticipation of the flak, I wrote to Martha Stewart Weddings last week and thanked them for featuring you and for treating you like any other couple.

I also brought the issue to my local PFLAG meeting yesterday. :)

Posted by: Bonnie Half-Elven | Jan 11, 2010 12:24:12 PM

Not sure why I am saying this, other than it is some of the views and responses to this Barefoot Bride that led me to stop blogging about gay issues. I enjoyed Jeremy's response to the barefoot bride. He was respectful even in light of personal nature of the article and the views. His statements address her views and her article but not her. I have full respect and admiration for that response.

I point this all out because some of the other pro-gay responses to this blogger embarrass me as a gay married man. She expressed her views as hurtful as they are and some set out to hurt her back. I personally can't see how calling her names like "hater" or "bigot" will suddenly make her see our loves and lives in a different light? While I can see the intentions of those who compared her views to the KKK were trying to make a point to her, do you really think that making such comparisons will have any chance of opening her mind or rethinking her position? In more simple terms: Is the cure for hate more hate? Is the remedy for actions like hers to take those same actions back at her? Not sure I think this helps anyone and I feel so frustrated when I see it from GLBT folks because I believe by taking this road, we hurt ourselves and our cause. That frustrates me to watch.

It is clear to me she, like so many others, believes we choose to be gay. We know that isn't true and our lives are testaments to that. Taking the time to compassionately tell her about our lives, our loves and our marriages is the key to changing minds and hearts. We won't change every mind this way and yet we gain more by responding to people like her with compassion, it may not change her mind but it may change the minds of her readers or those watching. This is how MLK and Gandhi made that work for them in changing minds though nonviolence. They knew the world was watching, so they had everyone respond in love, respond without verbal or physical violence.

I despise watching GLBT suffer but I also have no interest in seeing others suffer either. I disagree with this woman with all my heart and soul, but I have no desire to see her suffer name calling or KKK comparisons and I certainly won't celebrate that she is getting blowback for her views. I don't want her to get "blowback" so we win. I want her to fucking understand us and I know that won't happen though the celebrations of bashing her.

I end my little temper tantrum there. Jeremy, I would understand if you didn't print this.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Jan 11, 2010 12:42:23 PM

I always say to these people, you can always turn the page.

Posted by: marsmannetje | Jan 11, 2010 3:11:32 PM

The only thing I did not like about the article was that you only got one page and the other couples got two.

Posted by: Bob Miller | Jan 11, 2010 4:24:38 PM

HA! That's putting it in perspective, Bob :-)

But actually, I think only the first couple got two. I think that's the format: 3 couples, first with two pages, others with one each.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 11, 2010 4:54:49 PM

I had enough trouble finding the section (too many insert cards...) kept flipping past it. As a florist myself, I think you found a winner when it came to creating the vision of your ideas. That and you both looked so handsome!

Posted by: Bob Miller | Jan 11, 2010 9:46:42 PM

Someone put up a link to photos of her and her fiance in the comments on her blog. Very nice photos. I find it sad that she cannot see that their photos show a couple very much in love which is exactly what the photos of Jeremy & Andrew show. Both are to celebrated IMO and I wish both couples many years of happiness.

Posted by: John | Jan 11, 2010 10:10:36 PM

I'm not quite sure I see Rebekah "suffering," unless we're using a really loose definition of the word.

The internet is a wide open place, and the girl chose to air discriminatory and ultimately hateful views about other human beings, in this case, specific human beings in public.

So she's getting her ass handed it to her.

It happens.

And I can never over-emphasize one fact: they and their worldview attacked us first.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 11, 2010 10:15:36 PM

My favorite part is "I don't hate homosexuals... HOWEVER..."

And she's complaining about showing them as being intimate? They are sharing a kiss with their families standing next to them, not following them on the Honeymoon to see the action in the hotel room!

Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Jan 12, 2010 2:39:41 AM

Evan, you don't see her suffering because you believe she deserves to be called a horrible person, a bitch, a bigot, told her husband is really gay. I am sorry, I don't agree anyone, regardless of what they have done deserves those things. I also do not believe those things help our cause. Responding to her with understanding that this is mostly likely how she was raised. To believe gays choose their "lifestyle" and I am not sure calling her names and insulting her life with change her beliefs. If she does "hate" gays, she now hates us even more. What did that fix? How did that help?

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Jan 12, 2010 10:06:22 AM

Joe: You know I too find the personally-target comments uncalled for, and I posted as much. But you and I both know that in an open internet forum, this kind of thing happens. It happens to me. If you're going to go public in this realm and weigh in on "controversial" matters, you have to be prepared.

And as many have stated: Her post is a MAJOR affront to me personally. I know to her I'm just one "the gays." But this is my life, my marriage, my family, my shared kiss that she's decrying. Not only decrying, but actually asking her readers to wage a complaint campaign/boycott against! It was a hostile act to me as a person, even if couched behind the usual.

So you're totally right to say your piece, and I'm glad you do. You and I have the same style: Take on the message and the action, not the person. But at the same time, I do think there is a bit of a "if you can't take the heat..." situation here. With posts come responsibility, and with public printing comes public reaction. Her post was highly irresponsible, and she's facing an organic human reaction (which, humans being what we are, becomes overheated in some cases).

It should be noted that she's shut off further commenting.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 12, 2010 10:23:10 AM

Joe, I guess it's a matter of tactics.

Personally, I think that life is short and that we have to choose different tactics for different situations. This girl put herself out there, and as Jeremy said, she leveled a personal attack. So, you know, knives out.

(Figuratively, of course.)

But I'm more concerned about the kids who are exposed to that sort of hateful worldview, and when I was 16, I would have been a lot more interested in seeing a bunch of gay people come in and, again, hand her her own ass, than try to make nice-nice, as if her discriminatory worldview is somehow acceptable. I'm much less concerned with a girl who has everything, yet feels the need to, without provocation, go on the attack against people she doesn't even know. And if the worst thing about her day is that some gay people were mean to her on the internet, she should count her blessings. I obviously don't wish her any personal ill will, and I hope she has a beautiful life. I don't want to know her, though.

I take a gentler approach with people I know personally (to a point...I cut off a friendship earlier this year because I learned of a person's true views), but ultimately I want to see her worldview marginalized, and as quickly as possible. By writing that post, she made herself a public part of that conversation.

I may have shot my mouth off a couple of times in that thread, and I do that. I accept it. I'm a pistol, and I always have been. I didn't call her a "cunt" or anything, and I even called out someone who did, but not for the same reasons you might have. I called that person out because I know, from dealing with wingnuts, that they will go into full attack mode until someone says something impolite, and then they hit the fainting couch like their dog has just been murdered, and they ignore the rest of it. And I don't buy the notion that if everyone went in there and left uber-respectful "Excuse me, ma'am, but if I may raise an objection, if thou willest" comments, that it would have any effect on her. She's not going to change her views based on an internet comment thread on her blog. That tends to happen through personal experience with actual human beings in the flesh. So, again, the person I'm worried about is the gay teenager from HER worldview, one who was baptized at 13 and had their head held under the fucking water ever since, who might stumble across that and find that, hell, not only are there other people out there like me, but they're coming in guns blazing for me, and it might give them hope.

And I think the truth of the matter is that there are carrots and there are sticks in the world, and just as in foreign diplomacy, you sort of have to have both.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 12, 2010 11:26:13 PM

The blog seems to have been shut down by its hosting provider for having too heavy server traffic.

Posted by: Dan T. | Jan 13, 2010 8:18:56 AM

Evan,
I am only going to reply to two things I read in your post because I am feeling doubtful this debate is fruitful or productive. After standing my ground and writing about the importance of nonviolence for almost 5 years, I must say I am amazed when I see people try to justify, rationalize or make useful any form of violence as a "tactical measure." I follow MLK and Gandhi's definitions of violence which include "shooting from the hip" if the goal of the "shooting" is to hurt, insult or damage this woman's reputation. You self-admit your intention was to marginalize her and people with her worldview.

What you don't see is that many of young GLBT folks growing up in her world view hold that world view as well, even about themselves. To insult and call out with swords those ideologies without considering those outcomes hurts and insults them, it doesn't help. The biggest reason, because it doesn't account for human needs and feelings. Calling someone a bigot might feel good for you, but it does little change the minds of those watching. In fact, it may close their mind and ears to any further you have to say. Changing minds isn't always about being the witty one, but the one who says something meaningful.

Nonviolence isn't gentle at all. There is nothing gentle about sitting at a lunch counter getting the living crap beat of you. Nonviolence is a strong method of action. Those who choose it, agree they will not use violence in any form, but I see nothing gentle about it.

Lastly, I am reminded of Regan or Gorbachev. These two men had a vicious war of words going throughout the cold war. Regan called Gorbachev, "The Axis of Evil" at one point. A well known story about these two men is that they were having a screaming match in the Oval Office of the White House when Regan jumped from his chair and sent for the door. He stopped, turned, took a breath and said to a puzzled Gorbachev, "This is not working. Can we start over? My Name is Ron, can I call you Mikael?" That changed the scope of history and help to end the called war.

I was reminded of this story when I read your words: "She's not going to change her views based on an internet comment thread on her blog. That tends to happen through personal experience with actual human beings in the flesh."

My question to you, are you not a human being? Could you not have contacted her via a phone call and said I would like to talk with you?

Violence works, it does. But the damage it does on the way isn't worth it to me. You are mostly trying to justify your reactions and the reactions of others by saying she deserved it. That scares me when the world works in "deserves" because they are arbitrary. She most likely thinks you deserve the punishment of god and will celebrate when it happens to you. That won't change until she sees you as human and that won't happen when you call her names or insult her.

Words make up 7% of a conversation. That's it, just 7%. You let 7% have that much effect on you as to drag you so low as to make you hate her and want to hurt her emotions? I think she wins if that is the case. Don't listen to the words people use...ever. Listen only to what they are truly saying they feel and need. Not only will this method help you live longer, it will help you see people as human even in the most difficult of times (like these.)

Now, you wrote in your note to me to come read this comment on GAY that you believe this conversation is important, and I agree. I have also been having this conversation about the gay rights movement for years. I am tired because I don't think it will ever happen. Shooting from the hip is how many of fights ending in murder started. As the old saying goes, fight like water. Water is gentle and smooth, yet can carve canyons into rock.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Jan 13, 2010 10:04:01 AM

Okay, first of all though? The story about Reagan and Gorbachev is part of American folklore now, but it's not what ended the Cold War. A strong case can be made that Gorbachev changed his tone because he was prescient enough to see the Iron Curtain tattering around him. Hungary was quietly opening its border to the West, Poland's government and sphere of influence was won by reform-minded people, and when the USSR lost Poland, Gorbachev knew that that period of history was drawing to a rapid close. So, OF COURSE he changed his tone. To attribute the end of the Cold War to a conversation where Ronnie decided to be nicer to Mikhail is an oversimplification, at best.

And the reality of the matter is that there is a HUGE difference between rhetorical violence and actual violence. You'll notice that there is NOT a movement in the LGBT community to start bombing their churches or taking their rights away, or anything like that. This is most likely the worst "discrimination" this girl will experience at the hands of the LGBT community in her entire life.

"You self-admit your intention was to marginalize her and people with her worldview."

No. I said that I want to see her worldview marginalized, and why wouldn't I? I want to see the worldview of radical extremist Muslims marginalized. I want to see the worldview of American white supremacists further marginalized. Because worldviews that exist, in large part, to bring harm to other people, SHOULD BE debunked, exposed, mocked, and thrown into the dustbin of history.

"My question to you, are you not a human being? Could you not have contacted her via a phone call and said I would like to talk with you?"

Sure, I could, if I really thought this was about THIS girl. But I don't. Me spending a lot of time trying to reach out to some girl with a computer in Virginia isn't going to have some snowball effect where tolerance spreads throughout the Christian Fundamentalist community. Maybe someone else wants to do it. But I see this less as a personal struggle for THIS girl's heart, than I do as yet another instance where some Christian Conservative person has thrown daggers at the LGBT community, and in this case, at two specific people, and that merits a response.

"Words make up 7% of a conversation. That's it, just 7%. You let 7% have that much effect on you as to drag you so low as to make you hate her and want to hurt her emotions?"

Joe, you're adding all kinds of things in that simply aren't there. No one hates this girl. Or at least, I don't. As I said, I wish her the best, and a beautiful life. But that doesn't mean that she's excused from having her beliefs and opinions challenged fiercely when she throws the first stone, and I don't think that the answer in every case of conflict is just making her understand us better. I don't believe that all people are reachable, Joe. So my goal isn't to reach "all people." I'd rather contribute to the growth of the climate that makes opinions like hers embarrassing to express. She's always free to express them, but I think, as Martha Stewart would say, It's A Good Thing when people express discriminatory, biased, and yes, bigoted views, and are met by an immediate condemnation from 90% of the people who respond.

Maybe it would be different if we weren't talking about peoples' actual lives and things that affect large groups of people for years to come. I actually draw a parallel to responding to climate-change deniers. The people who are funded by Exxon-Mobil, who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent humanity from making the changes we need to make to ensure that the planet remains livable...I don't care about making them understand us, or trying to understand their worldview. Whether they're the leaders who perpetuate that bullshit, or the followers who swallow it, we're on a timeclock here. Those ideas deserve nothing but scorn, derision, debunking, etc. Again, no one is advocating ACTUAL violence.

And, to be honest, I question how far you can take the examples of Gandhi and MLK, Jr. They were great men who were effective in the situations they lived, but not every situation is parallel to that. And again, I bring it back to the comparison between fighting for LGBT equality and say, foreign diplomacy. What do you think we're doing with the Uganda situation? We're not trying to make David Bahati understand us. We're heaping information, outrage and scorn upon David Bahati and other Ugandan lawmakers who support the bill there, as well as the American Evangelicals who have given them aid and comfort. You can sit with Scott Lively for a week to try to understand where he comes from, but meanwhile, what he's done, and what's happened in Uganda have real life consequences. So, as it should be, we're exposing this situation to widespread outrage so that the full force of American and European diplomacy can be used to shame and embarrass, as well as make the attention hurt enough, that these people kill this bill. Should I be concerned about David Bahati's feelings, and if so, why?

But as I said in my note to you, though, I see this conversation as different parts of the same machine. Some of us are carrots, and some of us are sticks. Some of us are both, depending on the situation. But all have to exist. The Iron Curtain wouldn't have fallen if reformers behind that curtain weren't going apeshit. Iran wouldn't currently be in the upheaval it is if its people weren't currently going apeshit. This is different in a lot of ways, but it's also the same, in that it pits a more open worldview against one of discrimination, oppression, and hatred. So are we calling for physical harm to come upon these people? Of course not! But a few hundred rhetorical bombs, of varying tone, all with the message that if you put bigotry and bias out there into the public sphere, you're going to get called on it, and called on it fiercely? Fantastic.

As my best friend said to the girl in that thread when I sent it to him, after 300 some-odd comments in support of equality, "Well it looks like you said something stupid."

Yes, she did. And maybe she has a better sense today of how socially unacceptable her discriminatory views are becoming.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 13, 2010 12:35:09 PM

Would it be horrible to point out that this Barefoot Bride's got a lot of personal information at the ready?

For example, her real name is Rebekah Bentley and she writes for "A Lady in Waiting" [ugh] at http://www.aladyinwaiting.com/index.php/articles as well as the BFB. Rebekah's mother is Vicki Bentley, who writes for "Everyday Homemaking" at http://www.everydayhomemaking.com/about-us.html and speaks at homeschooling advocacy events.

Rebekah is betrothed to the totally-straight-you-guys Michael McBride (irony alert!) who teaches ballroom dancing in Richmond, Virginia through "And...Dance" at http://www.and-dance.com/ , which has a lovely picture of Michael and his betrothed on the front page in a (now successful) plea for visitors to vote for Michael and his betrothed in a free wedding photography contest for their July 2010 wedding.

Shortly after their wedding, Michael and his wife plan to go to India to work at an orphanage, where his wife who has no post-high school training will teach English for some reason.

Note that I found their addresses and phone numbers in multiple locations and decided to respect their privacy and not share the information. YOU'RE WELCOME, REBEKAH!

Posted by: Matt Algren | Jan 13, 2010 1:18:54 PM

Quiite simple Put Evan, I disagree, but reading your comments, I am concerned you and I have the same understanding of why I call nonviolence. You somehow think it is about being nice and it isn't. It is about being real without the use of violence.

I think the vast majority of comments and responses to the Barefoot Bride were violence, vulgar and unnecessary and that it could have been handle much better. (espcially the comments from folks at JMG. I think such responses do nothing but make people like the Barefoot Bride, her readers and anyone else watching who carried that worldview, hate us more after reading the poorly worded responses we gave.

Read the works of Michael Nagler or Marshall Rosenberg, visit iwagepeace.org or the Metta Center and see for yourself what nonviolent means can do. Once you study it, and see just how powerful it is, I wonder if you wouldn't change your mind about the whole carrots and sticks thing.

You wrote: Yes, she did. And maybe she has a better sense today of how socially unacceptable her discriminatory views are becoming.

I doubt it! I bet money she thinks gay people are more evil now then she did before and so do her supporters. All they saw and could see was our response. If they hated us before, they now hate us more. No one learned anything. That's my whole point. Had we responded differently, nonviolently, the chance of change could have come.

What if: We had all sent her our stories and she learned we didn't choose to be gay. What if: Instead of handing her ass to her, we handed our compassion that this is the information she has and is currently working from and it is incorrect. This crap is most likely what she was raised believing. It can be changed.

Anyway, I suspect I am not changing your thoughts about it and I am tired of trying to convince anyone to use nonviolence. Exactly why I don't write about it anymore. I go and teach it to those who want to learn, that is all I can do.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Jan 13, 2010 2:43:34 PM

As a last thought, Evan, I am convinced we would not have the funding or attention we do for those living with HIV/AIDS had it not been for the nonviolent direct actions of ACT-UP. The Die-ins, the protests, blocking traffic and all done without violence of any sort. ACT-UP NY still has a nonviolence curriculum on their site that rocks. YOu can read it here: http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/HistoryNV.html

This is the nonviolence I talk of and yes, even with the Barefoot Bride. Cleve Jones is currently running a nonviolent boycott of the San Fran Hyatt over its support of Prop 8. It has cost the hotel 7 million dollars. That is my kind of action. Not only does violence back-fire, it gets you nowhere.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Jan 13, 2010 3:16:39 PM

Note, Joe, that I'm not saying that the methods you're talking about are ineffective. I'm just saying that I don't see a problem with a multi-pronged approach here.

It's likely that this girl HAS heard before that gay people don't choose their sexuality, etc. Why? Because she's likely been specifically taught that "gays say this" but that it isn't true.

You said:

"I doubt it! I bet money she thinks gay people are more evil now then she did before and so do her supporters. All they saw and could see was our response. If they hated us before, they now hate us more. No one learned anything. That's my whole point. Had we responded differently, nonviolently, the chance of change could have come."

That's not what I said. I said that she may have more of an idea how socially unacceptable her views are. Look -- to be her age and to hold her views shows that she's one of those who's deadset on keeping a 1950's mindset. Most people her age are far more supportive of equality, but she's bought into the crap she's been taught.

My point is that regardless of what she ultimately learns or doesn't learn from this, the comments ran the gamut of naughty and nice, but they all shared a similar passion.

So maybe people shouldn't have immediately called her names, but at the same time, I appreciate the (now deleted) comment that simply said, "You suck. Go fuck yourself." I appreciate where that comes from. Because one point that needs to be driven home to these people is that, in matters of civil law, they're free to have their opinions, but their religious opinions on what rights we should or should not have are absolutely irrelevant.

I would also argue that attitudes have changed within the gay community itself over what kind of engagement we should have with that worldview, especially in people around my age (pushing 30) and younger. I'm more of the opinion that our struggle is a legal issue, and that these people should never have had the right to vote on our lives in the first place. Especially as a federal case is now going through the courts, if we win, I'm going to care even less what garden variety wingnuts think about our issues. I'll continue to point them out and give them a wider audience, and I'll continue to critique/mock them as needed, but it seems to me that we're on the precipice of public opinion crossing over to our side for good, and The Barefoot Bride is not part of the "movable middle." She may well be one of those who in fifty years will be part of the anti-gay equivalent of the remainder of the white supremacist movement. And I don't have the heart for the cause of engaging with these people. (Some do! Such as the author of the blog we're on right now! But, for instance, where Jeremy is able to communicate with some of the anti-gay leaders on a personal basis, I have no desire to reach out to Maggie Gallagher. It's good that Jeremy does, because he gets them on the record being more awful than they even present to the public. But that's Jeremy. That's not me.) I care about real struggles, I care about the people suffering in Haiti right now, I care about people who go without clean water, I care about gay kids who get the shit beat out of them at school... not the faux pain borne by fundamentalist Christians in having to adjust to the reality of a world that doesn't lay out the red carpet for them quite as much it used to.

AND lastly, I would suggest that it's not the responsibility of all gay people, of the JMG commenters, to give a damn what those people think. To suggest that it is sort of cedes ground to that worldview, by granting it the validity of being engaged on such a respectful level. THEY are the ones who hold the intolerant, holier-than-thou viewpoint. Again, there's no movement afoot in the LGBT community to take a damn thing away from these people. If there were, I would oppose it, but nothing about our lives hurts these people in any way.

The stuff you talk about with the Manchester Hyatt, ACT-UP, etc., is GREAT, but it's not the same as this. And if it's cost the hotel $7,000,000, then that's a lot more "violent" than anything that's come down the pike toward Rebekah Bentley. She will survive. And if the goal of non-violent communication is being real, well then, she just got 300 comments worth of real.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 13, 2010 4:00:27 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails