Screen Kisses/Day of Silence

I meant to comment on this yesterday, but with all the news. . . . Well, you know how it goes.

Now, the AFA headline leads one to expect some steamy man love on the boob tube. Joe.My.God has a nice image of their press release, among other things. The headline reads "Procter & Gamble promotes explicit open-mouth homosexual kissing" in big bold type. Mmm, I said. Hot man-sex on the soaps. Well, no.


I did take a look at the clip, and had a few thoughts.



OK -- open mouth? I had pretty much the same reaction as Jeremy Hooper at Good As You. Didn't look much like it to me. I thought it was kind of sweet at first, but then I started thinking about it. These guys are in love, right? They're worried about each other. We're supposed to believe there's deep personal commitment here.

I didn't see it. I don't believe I'm sitting here parsing an on-screen kiss, but here it goes: the kiss has that sense of urgency that one associates with male sexual expression. It's a sexual kiss, not a caring kiss. It's a straight guy's interpretation of a gay men's kiss. It would have been more effective, I think -- and given the AFA real heartburn -- if the two had held each other, sharing their strength and their reassurance. That's what I think the scene was meant to be about.

(By the way, Wikipedia has long and very informative entry on the Luke/Noah story line. For those who don't watch the soaps (oh, c'mon -- I can't be the only one!), it's worth a look.)

The politics of this is encouraging. It's the presentation of a gay couple as perfectly normal, sans stereotypes, much as in Shelter. In spite of protests by the AFA -- and this is exactly the kind of thing that's really going to get them in twisted knickers condition, Luke and Noah are there to stay, which means that millions of people are going to see a gay couple on television regularly, just being themselves (as far as in possible in the soaps). That is a major stroke in our favor, because the best way to counter the anti-gay forces in this country is through information. That's why I believe that being out is so important -- the more people who know gay people, the more people who realize that in all important respects, we're pretty much like they are, the less ready they are to believe the lies of the right.

Which leads to the second part of this post. This is the angry part.

I was sitting here last night sort of surfing, sort of thinking, and all of a sudden -- and I don't even remember what I was reading -- one of the gay blogs, about the Day of Silence -- and suddenly the horror of Lawrence King's death hit me. I mean that word, too -- horror, and a huge surge of anger. A fifteen-year-old boy shot to death by a classmate for being gay. Fifteen. And Simmie Williams, seventeen. And how many others that we don't hear about?

Then I read this post by Joe Brummer.

Gandhi held the belief that each side of a conflict holds a piece of the truth and a piece of the untruth. He believed that nonviolent conflict resolution could be found if each group sat down and pulled together the truths each held and dispelled the untruths. I have personally seen more gays and lesbians willing to do this than I have ever seen from anti-gay groups. I have seen more gay activists willing to compromise for peaceful resolution on the issue than I have ever seen from groups like Americans for Truth or Faith2Action. I see these groups fight, complain and make demands to silence and dehumanize gays but rarely do we see any of them offer solutions to the problems gays and lesbians face and as it has been stated a thousand times in history, if you are not part of the solution, than you must be part of the problem.

That's the core. I admire activists like Jim Burroway, Jeremy Hooper, and Joe Brummer for their willingness to be reasonable in the face of the relentless hostility and hate-mongering (and I use that phrase fully aware that it doesn't have nearly the impact it should, but there's no other designation that really fits) of the right. The problem is, you can't open a dialogue with people who refuse to admit that anyone else's point of view has any legitimacy. Focus on the Family, American Family Association, all the other "family" organizations that are fronts for the right-wing anti-gay hate campaigners condemn any attempt to portray gays as people. It's the one thing they can't counter except by trying to suppress it, because they have no counter-argument. The lies stop working.

One noteworthy thing: Brummer points out the single condemnation from anyone in this group of Lawrence King's shooting: It's from Stacy Harp, who otherwise is about as unhinged as they come, and it was undercut by her following remarks, but even with that context -- well, here's what Jim Burroway had to say:

One year later, Lawrence King was killed in cold blood on February 12 in front of his teachers and classmates. Since then, conservative Christians leaders have celebrated seventy-three consecutive Days of Silence.

I’ve searched for Lawrence King’s name on Focus On the Family’s web site and CitizenLink. Guess what? There’s nothing but silence. I’ve searched the Family Research Council’s web site. More silence. Same with American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, the Christian Post, Christianity Today, the Christian Newswire and the Baptist Press. Nobody has raised their voice. Instead, we’ve had days and days of silence all around.

Exodus International, one of the principal sponsors of the so-called “Day of Truth,” has joined this perverse Days of Silence observation as well. I haven’t been able to find any statements of concern or condemnation from Exodus president Alan Chambers, vice-president Randy Thomas, or youth assistant Mike Ensley.

Believe me, I’ve been looking for it because I’d love nothing better than to be able to write a post and say, See? They really are concerned. But none of them could be bothered to put down their instruments of cultural warfare to say, “This was a terrible incident and should never happen again.”

To give credit where credit is due, Misty Irons at More Musings On has consistently been -- not an advocate, but at least a rational voice. No, I take it back. In all important respects, she has been an advocate, although we've had our differences. (It's instructive that one of these differences was her use of the term "homosexual" to denote gays and lesbians. When I pointed out that we find that offensive, she said that her audience -- largely conservative Christians who are at least open-minded enough to listen -- would be offended by the use of the word "gay." That says something in itself, I think.)

At any rate, Misty directed us to this post by Michael Spencer at Internet Monk:

One of the inevitable results of the information age is that anyone who wants to know the worst behavior of any group can gather that information easily. If one chooses not to be judicious and cautious with such information, it is possible to make every member of a group guilty by association . . . For example, saying that some gays somewhere have hundreds of sexual partners has little to do with the behavior of gays that I might know. As a statement of statistical truth, it cannot be applied in a determinative way to any individual. The average preacher is well aware of the extremes of sexual sin that probably occur among heterosexuals, but few would find it as easy to speak about internet porn addiction as promiscuity in the gay community.

What this says to the gay community is simple: evangelicals aren’t interested in the truth as much as they are interested in an emotional response. There is an agenda to how we process such facts and stories into communication.

It's interesting reading through the comments to this post, but one thing struck me, both in the post and the comments: the automatic assumption that what one commenter called "the traditional biblical interpretation of homosexuality" is correct. In spite of Spencer's call to re-evaluate tactics, the basic lack of self-questioning on the fundamental issue is glaring. He's trying, but there are some blind spots here.

Unfortunately, I have to take this as a minority viewpoint among evangelicals, although there does seem to be hope for the future. But when you look at the reaction to Day of Silence, particularly from bullies such as Ken Hutcherson (and Dave Neiwert has some things to note about his activities, here, here and here), what we have is a political agenda.

I ran across this very interesting collection from 1998 at People for the American Way (and unfortunately, I can't link to the website right now for some reason. I'll have to get the link later. Update: I did get a link to the printer friendly version). It's a series of articles that lays out the religious right's use of gays as the centerpiece of a bid to impose their beliefs on the country at large. It's the clearest exposition I've seen illustrating the single most important fact about the religious right: it's a movement to take political power. It is not about belief, it's about power. It's interesting to see how timely it still is. I remember reading a New York Times article some while ago that quoted one of the rabble-rousers on the right as crowing about same-sex marriage -- it was the best fundraising tool they'd found in years.

Anyway, since this is turning into a ramble (that's the problem with surfing -- one thing leads to another, and your topic shifts to suit), I'm just going to say -- restate, actually -- a few things that have been ongoing themes here.

I admire those who try to establish dialogue with the anti-gay right, but I think the endeavor is doomed. The people who need to be listening refuse. They don't believe in compromise. It's that simple.

Yes, I'm angry. I'm a gay man -- it goes with the territory. I'm also very happy. There is a lot of joy in my life. (Yes, the two can go hand in hand -- the anger, after all, is justified, as is the joy. I respond to things as they are, pretty much.)

They declared war on us. Fine -- bring 'em on. (I think they're losing. They're even losing their own next generation.)

Keep fighting.