Kids As Political Weaponry

A very minor flurry of controversy is swirling around portions of the gay blogosphere over last weekend's White House Easter Egg Hunt. The kerfluffle began when the boys at Queerty critiqued a picture of gay parents holding their small child in front of cameras at a news conference for the event. After receiving criticism in return, they issued a clarification that seemed just a mite disingenuous.

The Republic of T took issue:

I don’t blame the photographers for wanting pictures. After all, they came to take pictures of gay families, and that kinda includes our kids. And I agree with the idea that parents shouldn’t shove their kids in front of the cameras if the kid doesn’t want to be in that position. But I resent the assumption that we would do that, whether it comes from right wingers who don’t know what their talking about, or gay bloggers who don’t seem to know much more and seem to assume (along with the right wingers) that we were there to exploit our kids when it just wasn’t the case.

This is, of course, also a mostly disingenuous response, because the entire point of politically coordinating a gay presence at the Easter Egg Hunt was to get as many parents and kids in front of the cameras as humanly possible.

Other bloggers have since piled on Queerty.

It's always strange to observe the sturm and drang that results whenever The Cause is criticized in any way, shape, or form. Like Boozhy, I had my reservations about the politicization of a children's event. Call me a right-winger, but using children to wage political battles has always left me with an uneasy feeling, whether it's religious protesters sticking hateful placards in their kids' hands, or gay parents dragging their children out in front of the cameras at an event that was supposed to be apolitical and solely for the children's enjoyment.

Of course having these honest, good-faith reservations results in the same old tired gay screeching, "How dare you criticize. You're just like right-wingers!" Thoughtful, nuanced, tolerant, no?

Comments

[brian]

I don't know where I read it -- maybe I read too many blogs -- but a great parallel was made in the 1950s when black children were not invited to the Easter Egg Roll. Maybe it's an urban legend, but the story goes Mamie Eisenhower saw the black children at the fence and the following year, she integrated the Easter Egg Roll -- probably to the horror of millions of white Americans.

She used children politically because it was a statement that had to be made. If the parents are willing, why not? It is likely that many of these children, 10, 15 even 20 years from now, when their parents tell them the story, they will be proud to have been part of it all.

The problem using children is the bigots and haters who might use those images against the children.

Unless you don't think gays should have kids at all.

[Queen Conservative]

Gay people want to be treated as just normal everyday people with jobs, kids, mortgages, etc. Yet they'll do everything short of dousing themselves with gasoline and striking a match to stand out and apart from the mainstream they claim to want to be included in. Even exploit their own children.

Why not just show up at the Easter Egg hunt - no fabulous leis, no "my lesbian mom can out golf your lesbian mom" t-shirts - and hunt the damn eggs like everyone else.

[Robbie]

Unless you don't think gays should have kids at all.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you for so beautifully illustrating the hysteria I'm criticizing.

Your analogy falls more than a bit flat, because gay families aren't banned from the Easter Egg Hunt. Sure, once it became a massively politicized event, the White House went seven circles of asshole, but it definitely wasn't a comparable situation. It wasn't as if gay families were banned, and they were crashing the gate. No, they took a fairly innocuous children's event and decided they were going to "make a statement," using their kids to do it.

I feel less than comfortable with dragging kids into these political battles, and I mean that for both sides, conservatives and liberals. It's one of my pet peeves. Let kids be kids. Leave the political fighting to the adults.

[Toby]

Maybe I missed something, but I think you and Queerty are reacting to ONE photo taken of two dads holding up their kid "Lion King"-style, which is unfortunate but probably taken out of context.

I haven't read any articles in which the little kids of gay parents were actually interviewed, so I think you're getting bent out of shape over nothing.

Anyway, I didn't accuse anyone of being a "right-winger" and I couldn't really give a shit what anyone thinks about Easter eggs. My problem is that Queerty is a crappy blog. That's all!

[Queen Conservative]

How long is Toby's "crappy blog" list? I think I've lost count.

[Tommy]

QC - I knew you were a Tory. Freddie Mercury wants the name back.

[Robbie]

Actually, I had a problem with this before the photos were available. I made a comment about it a few days before the event here.

My issue isn't the photo. However, it is pretty dishonest to pretend the point of all that political coordination and ticket wrangling for gay families wasn't to shuffle kids in front of the cameras to make a political point.

There's just something very off about parents dragging their kids into staged political fights.

The right-wing stuff is from the quote I posted.

[Patrick]

The guys at Queerty were talking crap like everyone else. They really weren't up in arms about anything, they're just keeping their blog alive, writing whatever comes to mind to fill up the space. Isn't that what it's all about? Bitching for bitching's sake? People need to lighten up. The families who gathered may have had a political agenda, but I think it safe to say for most parents their #1 priority is their children.

[Queen Conservative]

It's often funny how people get so defensive about things that weren't even meant to be about them; like Toby just assuming the "How dare you criticize. You're just like right-wingers!" quote was being attributed to him.

Another example would be if I said: "God that guy is a fucking retard!" - Tommy would immediately bristle up without stopping to consider I could just as easily have meant Louis.

[Toby]

Queen Conservative, you have a crappy blog.

[Queen Conservative]

I'd already put myself on your list Toby - but thanks for confirming it. I consider it high praise, indeed.

[Terrance]

Ok. Somebody tell me how we counter people's misconceptions about our families by not being visible as families.

[Robbie]

Well, Terrance, it's not an either/or proposition. Simply living our lives will always be the most effective way of combatting stereotypes and misconceptions.

However, once "visibility" becomes activist-speak for "political circus," then I tend to have problems. People couldn't just go to the Easter Egg Hunt. They had to politically organize, and get the lais, and inform the media, and basically use a children's event for their own political grandstanding.

I suspect I'm not the only gay man who had misgivings about this.

[Queer Conservative]

I think showing up and participating is enough, Terrance. And it'll go a lot further toward gaining you acceptance than leis and logos, or tantrums and tirades.

[Toby]

90 percent of life is showing up - the other 10 percent is leis!

[Queer Conservative]

Toby, on that I'll agree with you.

[Freddy Mercury]

Thanks.

[Another Gaymer]

Yyyyyyeah. See, I'd feel less comfortable about "using" children if certian people weren't determined to keep their head in the sand with regard to the existence of gay families, especially if those people are in a position of power over my parental rights and seek to roll them back.

"Yet they'll do everything short of dousing themselves with gasoline and striking a match to stand out and apart from the mainstream they claim to want to be included in. Even exploit their own children"

What a charming assumption that the mainstream might lay claim to us as "one of its own" in today's staus quo. This is, sadly, not a view widely held by most of its members.

On the other hand, things are changing, but in large part, I'm sorry to say, owing to "exploitation" like this.

Was anybody there who can confirm or deny? Was there child thrusting and tasteless papparazzi-chasing? I saw the picture, and I won't make an assumption from it. There's a difference between seeking out attention media-whore style and being cornered by the press over what is, given the current political climate and the current flux in status of gay rights in America, an actual story. And I can't say for certain from that picture alone if it was one or the other.

Other pictures I've seen have generally been the same boring photos of other families, grimacing parents and the smiling child. Well, I say smiling in cases where he/she isn't bawling in terror at a larger-than-life rabbit.

We get criticized for being too outre when we have Pride parades, and now criticized for the visibility of families? There's just no pleasing some people, short of completely disappearing. I wouldn't feel the need to put myself forward, if others wouldn't keep pushing me back. I'll stop politicizing sexuality when they do. Happily. Eagerly.

[PatrickP]

I would be less irritated with these parents if they had not worn rainbow leis. I thought the idea was to just sort of be like everyone else. So be like everyone else and just go.

(Toby, I like your blog. I sincerely enjoy reading it. I especially like it when you reveal your deep abiding passionate love for Ethan. I think it’s sort of hot.)

[Jordy]

VB rags on Queerty. hahhahhhaaa, that's funny. It's a gay blog war!

Watch it gurl, I'll scratch your eyes out!

Queerty is still my favorite, TOWLEROAD is a bit pretentious.

[Patrick]

The point is NOT to be like everyone else. The point is to be YOUR TRUE SELF. I understand why that makes some people, both gay and straight, uncomfortable, but feeling that way doesn't mean that somehow these parents are bad or wrong. I don't have any children, so I can't speak for these parents, but I can tell you that my straight parents used me all the time- to fetch things, do chores, etc. I really don't see how holding a baby up for a photo is going to damage the child. People who are reacting negatively to these parents are either blowhards or wimps. It's a molehill people! Geting bent out of shape over a rainbow lei? I'm sorry but what's the big deal? Self-expression is a key element to a healthy life.

[Jordy]

PS: Do gay blogs really have to have photos of nearly naked guys sprinkled amongst opinion and editorial? It's kinda' like reading Playboy for the articles. Hard to pay attention to the real issues being presented.

[Robbie]

There's a difference between seeking out attention media-whore style and being cornered by the press over what is, given the current political climate and the current flux in status of gay rights in America, an actual story.

Yes, but it was a staged story. It wasn't simply a matter of gay parents taking their kids to an annual White House event (something I certainly have zero problem with). There was political organization, media alerts, ticket buy-outs, and other things that made that leap from mere visibility to fairly tasteless exploitation.

I think one thing that's tiresome is the "all or nothing" attitude so many people have towards these things. If I say, "Sure, go to the event. Knock yourselves out. But do you have to make a political circus out of it?" And suddenly it's, "You don't want gay families to be visible!"

This total intolerance to any kind of criticism or even basic common sense when choosing when, where, and how to make political statements is part of the reason gay rights are so schizophrentic in this country. I'd love to know who got together and thought, "You know what will totally not piss off moderates we need? Politicizing a children's event!" and then got paid for that.

[Patrick]

OMG I'm so sorry but Queerty is so stale it's pathetic. They're always a day late and a three dollar bill short...

[Jamie]

Well, Terrance, it's not an either/or proposition. Simply living our lives will always be the most effective way of combatting stereotypes and misconceptions.

I can agree with that, Robbie, when it comes to one-on-one interaction with people in our everyday lives. While I don't think all the intentional publicity was necessary, I also think there's good reason to wear those rainbow-colored leis, or even just a rainbow pin, or whatever, to emphasize that gay families participate in the same rituals straight families do.

Like you, I live my everyday life without wearing my homosexuality like a badge on my sleeve, but there are occasions when en masse visibility is necessary to help divest people of their preconceived notions. However, the overriding concern should indeed be seeing to it that your kids enjoyed the day and had a memorable Easter.

As for photographing the children: with all the publicity it's absurd for anyone to think they could safely attend the egg roll without the possibility of their child being photographed, and I think those who attended were well aware of it.

But those who hold their children up to the camera like a badge, instead of just enjoying the Easter Egg Roll with them, shouldn't be parents in the first place, IMHO.

[Aatom]

a bit?

[Queer Conservative]

Unfortunately we can't pull anyone's head out of the sand. All we can do is live our lives and work to change the things we can. I agree with PatrickP, the leis were very outre and not needed.

[Patrick]

Robbie, I don't mean to pick at you personally, so please take this as me just trying to work out these concepts. What of it if it is organized? Isn't the root, the why, what matters? It seems like the only way these organizations would ever please you is if they ran everything they did by you for approval. I suspect the result of that would be that nothing is ever done, because it seems you don't want to bring attention to anything because it becomes politicized, and you don't want that. I don't see how the White House Egg Roll isn't ALREADY a political event, anyway, so what's the big deal? I think your argument about the children isn't valid because it presumes that these kids don't want to be involved, when we know that many kids are involved in all sorts of political movements. How detrimental to children could this be?

[Terrance]

I'm not sure I'd agree that showing up is enough. You'd be amazed at how often people make strange assumptions about our families because the idea of our families is beyond their grasps. I've had couples tell me that people assume they're brothers or sisters. When we're out as a family, we get comments about it being "Mom's day off." Even checking into a hotel, as two guys with a baby and only wanting one bed, get's us questions like which of you is the baby's father?"

I understand that visibility is what we do in our every day lives as families, but given how many people there are with misconceptions about us, and how few of us (gay families with kids) there actually are, there's a limit to how many people we can reach with a low key approach. Plus, it takes longer, and by the time we get the rights and protections our families need using that approach alone, our kids will be grown and have families of their own. (And since most of our kids are heterosexual, they'll already have those rights and protections for their families.)

If we'd have gone sans the leis, etc., chances are we wouldn't have been nearly as visible to as many people, and the impact would have been much, much smaller. From what I saw and heard that day I think we made a bigger difference in people just seeing our families where they hadn't before, as well as panding their preceptions of our families. We did to a little more than just "show up," by letting people know we were there, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Dan]

To be honest, I think everyone's taking this too seriously. This is what normally happens with people who don't actually have children of their own... they tend to be the most hysterical with the whole 'What about the CHILDREN!?!' line. I think, for 95% of the gay families out there, this was just a chance to have some fun with the kids and maybe make a little political statement at the same time. Sure, there might be few nutcase parents who are taking this way too seriously and using their kids as a political prop, but most of them are just having some fun while communicating the message "we're families too".

I just fail to see the big deal here.

[Aatom]

I think we're getting our collective panties in a bunch over very little here. I thought the idea to have a visible display of proud gay families at the egg hunt was brilliant PR for us. And the WH response made them look even worse than usual on this issue. These weren't men in chaps asking to rub up against one another on the WH lawn, it was a bunch of families, with kids who were no doubt just as excited to participate in such a big deal event as the rest of the kids were.

The leis are a total non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I fail to see how that constitutes "exploitation" of children. sorry, Robbie, I have to dissent on this one. The entire function is a press event, highly visible, and branding ourselves with innocent-looking leis to make the most out of the visibility is a completely innocuous touch. If anyone makes the mistake of confusing your response with that of a right-winger it may be because it is usually the right that throws up the bogus cry of "but the CHILDREN!!" to make their point.

So I find myself in the unlikely position of agreeing with Toby on this one. I'm not sure if my humble little blog has made it on to any of his blacklists yet though.

[Queer Conservative]

Hey, be your true-self and knock yourself out doing it. But if your true-self likes to march down Peachtree Street, or Michigan Avenue, or 5th Avenue wearing nothing but body glitter and a strap-on dildo - then don't act prissy and offended when you get backlash form Ma & Pa Square-State's true-self.

[Patrick]

I really don't see what your point is there. Can't seem to connect what you're saying to the Egg Roll... I mean, you would have to be a total idiot to think that those wearing rainbow leis weren't aware that they were calling attention to themselves. I'm sure they were prepared for what comes their way. As would a queen wearing body glitter and a dildo. It seems to me the only argument you guys have here is that certain behaviours make you uncomfortable. Big deal!

[Jordy]

OMG I'm so sorry but Queerty is so stale it's pathetic. They're always a day late and a three dollar bill short...
*************************************************

Any suggestions where I can find the latest gay community news and information without naked guy pictures plastered all over the page? Does anybody really click on those tired ads? I don't know how gay bloggers make any money? Don't quit your day job, right?

[Aatom]

why would you want to look at anything that didn't involve pictures of naked men?

[Robbie]

Putting it as bluntly as I can. There are some things that should never be done, out of simple human decency. Turning a children's event into a pseudo-political rally is one of them.

Boozhy took a little ribbing when he called children "sacred," but my attitudes fall along the same general lines. Some things about childhood should be sacrosanct and left entirely to the kids without agenda. I'm generally not fond of, "Won't somebody please think of the children!" but it's difficult not to have that element when gay activists take something for kids and turn it into their personal political event.

Aatom - I think insularity is playing a little bit into your opinion here. In that, "Gay activists stage event, homosexuals pleased," kind of way. I'd discussed this issue briefly with straight friends over the past few weeks, and their reactions were ambivalent at best. There are a lot of people who share the feeling that some things oughtn't be politicized. It's the gay movement's inability to separate time and place, to go "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and then wonder why things aren't going well for us," that grows increasingly irksome.

[Tommy]

I don't care what these people did with their chil'ens at the White House and I don't think that many people, gay or straight do. People are shoving their children into pictures, with the president (and without) all the time. If they think it is nice, useful, pedogogic, lasting memeories, whatever, for the kiddies ok; if they make a fools of themselves, fine.

Do people REALLY care?

[Patrick]

You probably want to avoid blogs altogether. Try watching Gay USA either on NYC cable or on www.mnn.org or www.freespeech.org

[Queer Conservative]

I'm saying that, no matter what point you're trying to make, if you insist on making it by standing out (whether it be with leis and a babystroller, or body glitter and a strap-on) then be prepared for the consequences. Like having people think that you're using your child as a political tool.

[Patrick]

Robbie, are you around children much? They're not so precious. They can be horrible. They are not precious. And from very early on, they know what they're doing. Very smart, manipulative creatures. I really don't think we should be walking on eggshells around them. I don't want children that never grow or mature and act like brats when they're adults...

[Patrick]

OK, I'm done now... laters!

[PatrickP]

Patrick, you obviously have some issues with children, but you shouldn't project so much of your angst onto them.

[Jordy]

why would you want to look at anything that didn't involve pictures of naked men?
******************************************************
Stop teasing me.....

Your making me blush.

[el polacko]

well sure... if a horde of screaming. sign-waving, ass-less chaps-wearing, moms and dads dragging a kid behind them had stormed the gates, i would say that was mighty inappropriate.
but, in view of the fact that moves to deny adoption and parenting rights to gay folks are afoot all over the country, i don't think that being at least a little 'visible' by wearing a small, easter-appropriate, multi-colored lei is such a horrible offense to anyone's sensibilities.
it would be swell if we didn't necessarily "stand out" in the crowd but the fact is that we already do to most str8 folks and it seems that completely blending in, at least at this point in our history, is not much better than just crawling back into the closet and letting str8 people decide what rights we shouldn't have based on the images of chapless, dildo-wavers already in their heads. maybe one or two people saw the boring, ordinary folks with kids who happened to be wearing a lei and realized they were no big threat.. then again, let's face it, this event usually gets no more than two seconds on the news with a shot of some fat baby staring cross-eyed at an egg... so really, much ado about very little in terms of a media event.

[Seanny]

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that they only went there to make a political statement and exploited their "poor children". I don't even know why it's even an issue. Just because they're a gay family it seems that the only conclusion anyone seems to come to is that they're only doing this for political reasons.

I'm sure some did do it just to get recognition; but what about the ones who only wanted to have a fun time with their children? Of course that couldn't be the case!

*Those evil gay parents with their evil gay agenda*

It's about the children. I don't see how a gay family going out with their children to an egg hunt is bad. Seems like everyone is making a big deal out of nothing.

[Worth Repeating]

I dove into this debate too, but mostly I just love that Robbie uses the word "kerfluffle."
http://journals.aol.com/gayesteditorever/WorthRepeating/

[Terrance]

I just wanted to point out one other thing that keeps getting lost in the discussions I've heard about this story.

When I first heard about that Family Pride was planning to organize gay families to attend the egg roll, I was also told not to post about it online, etc., because they wanted to keep it under wraps lest someone try to put a stop to it, etc. When it hit the news, as near as I can tell it was because Matt Drudge leaked it. I don't think Family Pride wanted it publicized until much closer to the event, or even not until afterwards.

[Jeremy Lee]

Actually, it should be spelt "KERFUFFLE". Just thought people should know.=)

[Dan]

You need to think about this a little more, Robbie. The mere act of being a gay parent can be seen as a political statement. Why bring a child into a family where s/he might be subjected to ridicule? It's probably not going to be a big deal, but why risk it? To be safe, I guess this means gay parents should do everything they can to appear 'normal' in public. Nothing serious... just have 'daddy 2' turn into 'uncle rob' whenever a stranger starts asking questions. Don't wanna risk a bad reaction in public, right? Might scare the kid and all.

They're just telling the world they're like anybody else. And unlike african-americans, we don't have our skin color to set us apart. Hence the leis. Do you think that most of these kids had any idea what they were involved with? Doubtful. From their perspective, they probably felt no different than the other kids there. They just had those cool flower necklaces.

[Aatom]

I'm totally with you on this one, Dan. I think sometimes some people on this site that I'm very fond of (a certain cutie from Chi-town comes to mind) are a little trigger-happy with criticism of anything that smacks of gay political activism, even if it's of the rather milquetoast variety we're discussing here. I think we should be applauding an approach to gay activism that stresses how normal, loving and family-oriented we can be, have been, and currently are. I just don't see how anyone acted in a crass political manner here EXCEPT for the White House itself at the very last minute. And I'm sorry QC, comparing leis to strap-ons is absurd in an almost frightening way. We whinge and moan about how gay pride parades only demonstrate one disturbing fringe of who we are, then we're also going to slam those who are trying to showcase the other side of our story as well? that doesn't make any sense.

and Kerfuffle is easily one of my favorite words.

[Tommy]

The thing, I've never really felt, or really understood, is the notion that others behaving badly, or however, somehow reflects on me.

I have heard it said and I have heard it argued and I guess there might be some logic somewhere to "all us gays should be on our best behavior" (whatever that is). But, really, deep down, I just don't get it, at all.

I guess its all quite a Kerfuffle.

[Malcontent]

What a pleasure to wander into my hotel room in Minneapolis and see a thread with 50-plus comments that hasn't yet degenerated into a bitch-slapping sandbox fight.

This is one of the (fortunately) few times that I vehemently disagree with Robbie. And perhaps just as frighteningly, I agree with Toby. (On the issue. Not necessarily on his critique of Queerty. It's all part of my resolution to become a kinder, gentler blogger.)

Children are "used" all the time for completely meritorious purposes. For example, international humanitarian and development organizations use pictures of children all the time, and tell their stories very publicly, to draw attention to their needs and issues affecting them, such as disease, hunger or poverty. Would anyone argue with that?

Why, then, should we draw a bright line at gay families who are just trying to seek a little dignity and equality for themselves? Why do we need to keep endlessly wringing our hands about "what people will think" about rainbow leis or other nonsense? It seemed to me to be a very dignified statement to make. So I say you go, sister!

If I had a kid, I would have tried to be there.

[Malcontent]

I should have added, very gently, that I found it a bit ironic that Robbie would find these families a bit too colorful or ostentatious in their political statement, when he posted just the other day on how he thought Rosie's HBO family special wasn't audacious enough!

Don't hate me, Robs. :-)

[Josh]

Tommy, given the number of times you've judged "republicans" as a group shows that you really do understand the concept. You assume everyone in a political party behave or think the same... why would it then be unjustified for others to think gays all behave or think the same?

[Tommy]

KUMBA YA, MY Lor . . . WHAT?

Well Josh, Not being a Republican, I am sure I don't know how they feel, except all they want to do is oppress everyone else. And if they feel guilt be association they should WAKE THE FUCK UP! ;)

Seriously, since I don't know what comments your refering too, I can't respond but there are acutally two different Tommy's who comment here sometimes so I can't blame ya for any confusion, if confusion it be.

[Malcontent]

Yes, the two Tommys really should work it out.

[Another Gaymer]

"Putting it as bluntly as I can. There are some things that should never be done, out of simple human decency. Turning a children's event into a pseudo-political rally is one of them."

Because a White House sponsored easter egg roll isn't a pseudo-political mollycoddle by nature? It's kissin' babies, man. That's the oldest exploitation in the book.

The families went to be present, to participate. The did not go to make a nusiance of themselves, save to those who would prefer they didn't exist. And you'll forgive me if I don't cater to those people.

Look, if there were some JonBenet Ramsey or Mackauly Culkin type exploitation going on, I'd call it too. Except we didn't see screaming, angry protestors. We didn't see troublemakers. We didn't see children being shoved in cameras with hysterical parents demanding anything other than the world acknowledge that they actually exist. It's almost laughable how minor a stir such a thing could cause -- Oo, gay parents raising kids!

And are leis now the new assless chaps? Oh, my. I completely agree, if you choose to stand out, you accept the consequence of being a target. Why the very audacity of electing to raise a family as a gay couple -- break out the scarlet letters!

Let's say in another world, they went and made no outward display of their homosexuality. There was no organization. There were no leis. Maybe the occasional reporter would find two women or two men with a child. And they'd have to ask, "Are you gay?"

And some day, a reporter won't even need to ask, because, yes, it won't matter.

We're not there yet. We won't get there by hiding.

[Robbie]

I'm not sure if I should reply, or if I should hang back a lil longer to see if that field of strawmen is going to expand any further.

And Mal. For shame. Tsk tsk. :P

Maybe this is a Midwestern thing. There are certain things you don't do. Politicizing children's events is one of them.

Ah well. Guess that sort of thing goes on the dead and dusty shelf of when people had shame.

[Tommy]

But Mal we need all the different Tommys to deal with QC's many personalities but I'll see what I can do.

[louis]

heh!

[Jack Malebranche]

My 2 cents - using children to evoke sympathy in a political context (unless you're talking about The Ronald McDonald house or something) is ALWAYS bottom of the barrel, least common denominator, sleaziest of the sleazy.

I want to clock every religious asshole who puts a placard in his kid's hand, and I want to vomit every time I see the gay advocacy industry pull the same cheap stunt with some maudlin TV commercial that draws focus away from homosexuality and puts it on children.

Kids don't understand politics. Using them as political tools is vile, and as far as I'm concerned, it crosses some 'informed consent' boundaries.

I get the impression that a lot of politically active homos get themselves 'trophy children.' Not that they don't love them, but...well...think..."Mommy Dearest."
Straight people do this all the time as well; so many have children because they are supposed to, not because they really want them.

I just think it's asinine for homos to run out and play "Me Too, Iguana" in this way. It's bad enough that straight people do it. At least they can chalk it up to a moment of passion. With homos it's so...pre-meditated...

(people with kids from previous het relationships excepted in much of this comment, but using your kids as political tools is disgusting no matter how you got them)

[Dan]

Clearly you don't work with kids, Jack. In my experience, they're more aware of this kind of stuff than you'd think.

They're not being used as tools. This whole thing was supposed to be a lowkey gathering of gay families. It was Drudge and the whole right-wing media apparatus that tried to turn this into a political stand.

[Queer Conservative]

Josh said: Tommy, given the number of times you've judged "republicans" as a group shows that you really do understand the concept. You assume everyone in a political party behave or think the same... why would it then be unjustified for others to think gays all behave or think the same?

Josh, Tommy doesn't understand anything but group-think. That leaves him no option but to lump everyone he disagrees with into the most evil group he can conceive of: republicans. And it doesn't really matter to him if you are or are not, because if you don't tow his party line then you're obviously mentally deranged or British (what the fuck is that about anyway?) And God, good God forbid that you don't fit neatly into his prepackaged prejudice - if you show any independent thought then you must be Sybil. So you see, your words fall on deaf ears - because as far as Tommy is concerned all gays should think alike. If they don't that throws his entire worldview out of whack.

As for Louis, he's smarter than Tommy. He just enjoys stirring up shit. But I can respect that.

[louis]

QC I'll have you know that I'm smarter than no one and I've stirred nary a shit. I'm far too much of a retard to lay claim to 'ither accusations.

[Craig Ranapia]

Jack Malebranche wrote:
My 2 cents - using children to evoke sympathy in a political context (unless you're talking about The Ronald McDonald house or something) is ALWAYS bottom of the barrel, least common denominator, sleaziest of the sleazy.

I reply:
We've got to stop meeting like this. :) Just don't be too shocked, folks, the next time some 'God Hates Fags' loony on the stroll shoves a vile banner in the hands of a child who can't read it and the MSM-orons go wild. After all, it's just politics people.

And, Dan, I usually find naivety endearing but the last par of your last comment had my eyes rolling like a couple of golf balls in an industrial tumble drier...

[Queer Conservative]

Some people just can't take a compliment.

[Tommy]

Stand back louis, the boy is talking in tongues again. It's clearly a transference syndrome.

[Jack Malebranche]

Clearly you don't work with kids, Jack. In my experience, they're more aware of this kind of stuff than you'd think

Dan, I was smart as Hell when I was that age and I was aware of a lot. That doesn't mean I was an adult who had reached conclusions based on my experience of the world.

Kids bounce off the information they receive, and if they have a pair of politically active gay parents reciting the importance of gay rights all the time, they'll be no different than kids who have fundamentalist parents screeching about 'immorality' all the time. They aren't blissfully ignorant, but they aren't making mature adult decisions. They're very, very malleable at that age, for the most part.

When they're in their teens and figuring themselves out and figuring out where they stand on things, when they're debating with their peers and capable of reviewing researtch and learning to think for themselves, that's one thing.

But little kids? They aren't clueless, but they aren't making informed decisions. If we thought they were, we might think NAMBLA was groovy. If we don't think NAMBLA is groovy, then I have to assume it is because we believe little kids can't give informed consent, and are too easily manipulated by people with ulterior motives. I think this applies to politics as easily as it applies to sex. These people are using kids; the only difference is that the affects may be less detrimental. It's still sleazy. Like, child beauty pageant sleazy.

[Queer Conservative]

Stop talking sense to these people Jack. You're wasting your breath.

[Jack Malebranche]

It was Drudge and the whole right-wing media apparatus that tried to turn this into a political stand.

Oh, yeah...by the way...

Are you really that naive?

How did Drudge find out about this?

These groups telegraphed their intent to do this MONTHS AGO. (see press release dated in freaking JANUARY)

For reference, it is now April. And the release said they'd been planning it for months beforehand. This was completely staged for publicity. It was the definition of a publicity stunt, carefully engineered to press the right buttons. (Please, folks, use the rainbow necklaces, but no political t-shirts...we want to manipulate moderates, not look like the fanatics we are)

They created this 'issue.'

They created this conversation.

That's half of public relations...creating favorable news.

(the other half is making bad news look favorable)

Do you really, really think a bunch of people didn't sit around at some free-trade coffee shop and plan this all out? I'm thinking the idea popped into their heads last year around this time, after seeing some news coverage of the event in question.

"Hey guys! The White House has this egg roll thing. We could totally WORK that!"

[Jack Malebranche]

Mybad, QC. I don't know what I was thinking.

[raj]

Ah, more bitching and moaning about (some) gays politicizing the White House egg roll. It strikes me that the host and hostess (the Bushies, that is) of the event did a pretty good job of politicizing it themselves:

‘Katrina Kids’ Sing to Laura Bush: ‘Congress, Bush and FEMA…Have Come to Rebuild Us’
Today at the White House Easter Egg Roll, dozens of children “from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.” To the tune of “Hey Look Me Over,” the kids from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:

“Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!”

More at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/

[Aatom]

I'm still so perplexed by all of this. I agree with everything Jack said, but I'm not quite clear how any of it applies to a freaking WH egg hunt, even if it was planned years and years in advance with the idea that we would get some good PR for gay parents out of it. PR is a sleazy business, for sure, but just because some publicity was sought doesn't mean these children are being exploited. You all sound like a bunch of uptight schoolmarms, honestly. By your logic, NO parent should EVER take their child to a highly publicized media event such as the WH egg hunt. I mean, really, these parents should no better than to parade their trophy kids around in front of the press like that.

I can't believe this is such a big deal to you guys. It's just weird.

[Aatom]

wow. "no better"? I need some coffee.

[Patrick]

Love it. "Katrina Kids"!!! As a former child performer I can say that you all are being totally ridiculous. Children from as early as the toddler stage are smart enough to use very basic tools to manipulate a situation and get what they want. Sure, they can be innocent, but from early on they know how to "play" innocent too. They are not angels. And children from early ages want to work and be productive. I'm not saying that I approve of sweatshops staffed with 6 year olds, but you guys have a real black and white view about parenting. And you're dead wrong when it comes to these parents and how they raise their children. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did. You may not choose to do it yourself, but no harm came to any of these children. Why are you guys using this argument to negate what seems to be a positive action that, in the long run, could be to your own benefit? Just don't see the point in gay people arguing about something like this.

And QC: You may singlehandedly restore the term "queer" to its purely derogatory state. It's as if you want the term to be derogatory. Your attitude is frightening. Why would you ever think that people who call attention to themselves aren't ready for what could come their way? Gay people know full well what can happen to them. It's like you're not gay. I can't get my head around how a gay person could have such feelings about other gay people.

[Robbie]

It's about as big a deal as American Idol.

Jes' makin conversation.

[Aatom]

God, I didn't realize it was THAT important. Good grief.

;)

[cmh]

Sigh. I wonder if the African American civil rights movement had this much inner conflict back in the 60's?

[Chad]

I can't get my head around how a gay person could have such feelings about other gay people.

... Just because they're gay??! Since when did my sexuality automatically bind me with every other gay person on this planet? You can agree or disagree with QC for whatever reason, but I'm real sick and tired of this "gay herd" mentality.

[Patrick]

I guess you can look at it way. For me, it has nothing to do with other gays, it has to do with me, me being gay, or a "gay herd" mentality. This is me and my innate sense of who I am and my understanding of it. I then apply the golden rule. I just think we need to cut our fellow gays a break and not get all in a tizzy when your brothers and sisters are open about who they are or act out in a way that calls attention to themselves. I can understand why this behavior could be seen as bothersome or inappropriate by some gays, but I think they shouldn't let their personal reaction to something color their perspective to the extent that they start condemning their own for something one has every right to do without prejudice. You all are acting like have some kind of knowledge, but you are not mind readers. You don't know all the reasons why these families did what they did and I would guess the majority of them have legitimate reasons for being there, not the least of which if giving their children the opportunity to experience this White House tradition. We all love to stand in judgment and criticize but sometimes it's OK to say nothing, especially when it's counterproductive. I'm not calling for the blind to lead the blind, I'm calling for gay people to live and let live at least when it comes to their own. Ideally, this would extend to all people, but I'm willing to start small...

[Robbie]

I'm calling for gay people to live and let live at least when it comes to their own

Just gay people, or are there other identities I must also profess loyalty to? Should I hold my tongue when white folk do something I think is silly or stupid? What about men? Just the Irish?

I'm going to need some kind of loyalty chart assigning values, I'm afraid.

[Patrick]

Yuck! Typos! Line should read "For me, it has nothing to do with other gays, or a "gay herd" mentality, it has to do with me, me being gay."

Ok, that's it for me today! I don't want to get carried away. Everything in moderation for me.

[Patrick]

Yes, just gays. Give your gay brothers and sisters a break. Are you with us or against us? I know that blogging is for blowhards but sometimes it seems to me some of us should be bitching about something else... It's like some of you don't believe that you need gay community, but I feel like I owe everything to gay community, even if though I'm not even an active participant! I still acknowledge what gay community has done for me, know that whether I like it or not just by being gay I am part of that community, and I understand that it is in community that we can make the greatest strides in turning our lot into a happy, healthy, fear-free one with no limits on our potentials, a by product of which I think would be everyone's lives, gay and straight, being improved. That's why I don't understand why gays would want to do anything that might contribute to a breakdown of such community...

Alright that really is enough. I must keep my day job.

Oh, and I don't care if anybody agrees with me. I know better than to think I can convince anyone of anything. This is just how I'm feeling at the moment...

[Tommy]

"its like some of you don't believe that you need gay community"

Not "like."

Some don't believe they need a gay community.

Some don't believe there is a gay community.

Some wish there were not a gay community.

Some wish there was a better gay community.

Some don't care.

You see all these sentiments and more played out, sometimes in the same commentator.

And LOL Robbie, you provacatuer, American Idol, indeed!:)

[Jack Malebranche]

Of course, it would be pointless to respond to all of that feel the love emoting about gay brothers and sisters...

Suffice to say that some pathetic excuse for a human being isn't my 'brother' just because he happens to enjoy sucking cock, any more than some other pathetic excuse for a human being is my 'brother' because we both happen to have been born in Pennsylvania.

The gay community is a socio-political establishment, and I'm definitely not a part of it.

If you insist that I'm part of it in any way, I'd have to respond that I'm a dedicated fifth columnist.

[Queer Conservative]

Jack, I like you. I really, really like you.

[Jack Malebranche]

Awww... warm fuzzy.

[Tommy]

Jack - definitely NOT! Turn in the rainbow lei, right now!

[tedinla]

The gay community is a socio-political establishment, and I'm definitely not a part of it.

You can thank that socio-political establishment for the fact that you are not thrown in prison or executed by the state for sucking cock in this country.

You ungrateful prick.

[North Dallas Thirty]

You can thank that socio-political establishment for the fact that you are not thrown in prison or executed by the state for sucking cock in this country.

Ted, if you and that "socio-political establishment" are going to rave about concentration camps operating for gays, go find some evidence, huh?

Second off, since you and that "socio-political establishment" saw fit to drop tens of millions of dollars on homophobic politicians, including FMA supporters and call them "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive", one must ask if you are really that much help.

Finally, given the attempts of you and that "socio-political establishment" to publicly defend gay sex and thuggery, one must also ask if you're not a complete hindrance to greater public acceptance of gays.

In short, you and your fellow scaremongers have exactly zero in common with the pioneers of gay rights. You're nothing more than Cynthia McKinney trying to invoke MLK to cover up her dumbass behavior.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Patrick, to answer you obliquely......

That's why I don't understand why gays would want to do anything that might contribute to a breakdown of such community...

That is because "the community" is arguing in favor of these sort of things.

[tedinla]

Hunh? What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say any of that crap. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[North Dallas Thirty]

To further reiterate what Jack said, the WaPo and MSNBC reported on this way back in January. I hardly think the groups were trying to keep it a secret, and indeed, it seems that they were actively trying to promote it.

To Aatom's point, though:

I'm still so perplexed by all of this. I agree with everything Jack said, but I'm not quite clear how any of it applies to a freaking WH egg hunt, even if it was planned years and years in advance with the idea that we would get some good PR for gay parents out of it. PR is a sleazy business, for sure, but just because some publicity was sought doesn't mean these children are being exploited. You all sound like a bunch of uptight schoolmarms, honestly. By your logic, NO parent should EVER take their child to a highly publicized media event such as the WH egg hunt. I mean, really, these parents should no better than to parade their trophy kids around in front of the press like that.

I can't believe this is such a big deal to you guys. It's just weird.

Actually, the reason it's a big deal is best described by what Another Gaymer said previously.

Let's say in another world, they went and made no outward display of their homosexuality. There was no organization. There were no leis. Maybe the occasional reporter would find two women or two men with a child. And they'd have to ask, "Are you gay?"

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

But the thing was.......that world took place last year.

The idea for gay and lesbian families to participate in the event came from Colleen Gillespie, a New York University professor, and her partner, Alisa Surkis, a computer programmer, who live with their 3-year-old daughter, Ella, in Brooklyn, N.Y., and attended last year's egg roll........

Rainy weather cut short last year's egg roll, but Gillespie said the best experience was standing in line in the cold waiting for tickets with other parents, including a mother who homeschooled her eight kids.

"In no time at all, we were sharing stories about our kids, sharing blankets," she said. "You can see people start to forget about you being two moms and just relate to you in a real way."

Now, you see that?

No media circus. No protestors. No talking heads throwing fits. Just families getting to know families and seeing that we really ARE all people, not some kind of distorted media image or crazies running around insisting that we all have to wear leis and bangles to "maximize our visibility".

The message that Surkis and Gillespie shared last year was clean, solid, and real. They talked TO people, not at them. They shared lives, not some attempted "media portrayal".

All that got shot to hell this year because a bunch of "activists" think you relate to people through television cameras. Instead of a chance to interact, they turned it into a media circus, where people were more concerned with how they looked for the cameras than how they connected with other people.

THAT'S why this is a big deal -- and why Robbie is spot on in his analysis.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Hunh? What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say any of that crap. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Ted, you ungrateful prick.

How DARE you criticize Mike Rogers and the Stonewall Democrats for alerting the world that the Bush administration was operating concentration camps for gays?

How can you be so self-loathing as to criticize John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum? Don't you realize that they're Democrats, so anything they do is "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive"?

And how can you, as a gay man, criticize poor gay teenagers of color who just want to fuck on windshields, vandalize cars, and chase law-abiding citizens with threats of bodily harm to them?

If it weren't for the "gay community" advocating such things, you would be jailed or executed.

You ungrateful prick.

WARNING: This post contains heavy doses of sarcasm and irony.

[Jack Malebranche]

SOLIDARITY! SOLIDARITY!

Someone once said to me that I should address the idea that I would be perceived as an ingrate.

The reality is that those acting on my behalf are not acting with my consent and are not necessarily even acting in my best interest. They certainly have no mandate from me. They're doing what they want to do, shaping a world in their own image -- not mine.

Those who would call me an ingrate and shower me with insults slip into self parody so quickly that they aren't worth addressing. They make asses of themselves so quickly that they don't need me to do it for them.

[louis]

Oh so Jake you feel as a homosexual that you've gained no benefit from any form of the various gay movements of past or present?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Louis, let's put it this way; you are not dissing the entire civil rights movement if you call Louis Farrakhan a homophobic, anti-Semitic hatemonger. Indeed, failing to do so significantly impairs one's credibility in the eyes of many others.

In such a manner is Jack acting relative to the "gay community".

[Jack Malebranche]

Yeah, what he said. More or less.

Have I gained some benefit for gay rights organizations in the past? Sure.

Does that mean that I have to play sing along with whatever gay advocates decide is best for me for the rest of my life? Hardly.

The greatest achievements of gay rights movements and the gay community have been making themselves unnecessary.

Having lived my entire life not having to worry about being forced to register as a sex offender (John Rechy's "The Sexual Outlaw" is an entertaining book I'd recommend for a quasi-factual impression of public homosexuality in the 70s) or go to prison for having a boyfriend...no, I don't need the gay community for anything. It was an artificial grouping, built to serve a sometimes admirable political agenda, the really important points of which have in my opinion already been realized. I think it could have been done better, and we'll spend a generation or so undoing a lot of the damage done and psychologies constructed during the process, but hey, hindsight is 20/20. Some people, at some point, did some things that probably needed to be done. Others were probably counterproductive. But that's history now.

The point is, the gay advocates of today do not have my mandate. I feel no real sense of solidarity with the gay community of today, though I enjoy many individuals who identify themselves as 'gay.' I also enjoy many individuals who call themselves straight, and many gays make my skin crawl. Some men who love men do have something special in common, and I do feel a sense of brotherhood with some of those men. But today's gay community (which is one step from including everyone who doesn't have male/female missionary sex) is far too broad to create any sense of real common experience. The gay community of old shared the common experiences of physical oppression and the deep-seated loathing of a majority of the population. Without that common experience of oppression, we (under the umbrella of gay) have very little in common and perhaps have very diffferent, even irreconcileable interests. This will only become more apparent with time.

I am not the first person to say this, and I'm certain I won't be the last. The gay community, such as it was, is now a counterproductive parody of itself.

[Craig Ranapia]

Damn, Jack I agree with you again! :) I won't speak for anyone else, but I didn't come out of the closet to go live in a ghetto of Borg-like groupthink.

Got a problem with that?

[Queer Conservative]

You can thank that socio-political establishment for the fact that you are not thrown in prison or executed by the state for sucking cock in this country.

I've had some bad blowjobs - but I never wanted anyone executed because of it. Get a grip tedinla.

[Queer Conservative]

Oh, ND30 you might get a kick out of this.

Why is the most inoccuous of posts that always go off on a tangent?

[tedinla]

The gay community is not what you've described. You're one of those people who stand back and criticize and backbite, then congratulate yourself on your keen insight and individualism, yet still take full advantage of the privileges gained through the efforts of those you denigrate. Hypocrite.

Unless you get off your high-horse and try to make a difference for good, rather than spewing smallminded and banal denunciation in small venues where you feel you can get away with it without consequence, why should anyone pay any attention to you? You're just an annoying noise that should be ignored.

[tedinla]

Don't nitpick QC--you get the point.

[tedinla]

BTW--back on topic...if the gays shouldn't wear the leis for the sake of the children, then the politicians shouldn't be allowed the "Katrina Kids" photo-op....

"Katrina Kids"...sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon. Seems like a much worse stigma to have to live with than if daddy wears a flower necklace that indicates he's smoked a few poles in his time.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, tedinla, I will gladly posit that, had we actually focused on gay rights rather than using them as a reason to support every moonbat cause under the sun, i.e. lowering the age of consent, higher taxes, unlimited abortion, and money for Palestinian terrorists, we would have a lot more of them.

The progress that has been made in this country has been, in my opinion, made primarily through those courageous gay people who took time to talk to their friends, neighbors, and coworkers and show them that we're not all leftist fruitcake sex addicts.

Unless you get off your high-horse and try to make a difference for good, rather than spewing smallminded and banal denunciation in small venues where you feel you can get away with it without consequence, why should anyone pay any attention to you?

Bushwah.

As Queer Conservative just showed, Ted, you have absolutely zero problem with spewing smallminded and banal denunciation -- when you're the one doing it. And it, for instance, makes it all that much easier to demonstrate that the "gay community", which you claim to represent, is not only antireligious, it's completely hostile to even the concept of it.

What you're doing is using insults to try to force gays who refuse to buy into your demands that all gays conform to your ideals to shut up. That might have worked back in your quivering-jello, lack-of-self-esteem-makes-me-fuck-everything-bare-and-shove-needles-into-my-arms day, but it's not going to fly with queers who have lived in the real world, know that not every straight person is Fred Phelps, and have figured out that the vast majority of people don't care if they're gay as long as they show up to work sober, pay their rent and taxes, and don't dance on their front lawns naked.

[North Dallas Thirty]

BTW--back on topic...if the gays shouldn't wear the leis for the sake of the children, then the politicians shouldn't be allowed the "Katrina Kids" photo-op....

Let's revisit the lyrics of that song, shall we?

Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!”

Notice the fact that it mentions everyone -- "people", "Congress", "Bush", "FEMA", "people" -- not just one or two, but EVERYONE.

The problem that anti-Bush bigots have is that anything that mentions Bush freezes their neural pathways and blocks them from recognizing anything else, like the fact that the song was quite obviously a thank-you to ALL the people who helped with the Katrina rebuilding, at an event that is supposed to be a NATIONAL celebration.

But hey, if Family Pride is going to lie and say they were "keeping it secret", I suppose it shouldn't surprise us that they're now trying to point fingers and scream "politicking" as a means of diverting attention.

[Queer Conservative]

Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush...

The moonbats brains lock up like Duke LaCrosse Players when they hear the word...

[Jack Malebranche]

The gay community is not what you've described.

I'm not a kid, Ted. I'm over 30 years old and I've been 'out' since I was 17. I've hung out with gays in gay clubs, I've been to pride events (even marched in a parade), I know people in the gay health/activism industry. I've lived and associated with gays in San Francisco, NYC, LA, Portland and the small town I grew up in. I've read your books, flipped through your magazines, watched your press releases.

I know exactly what the gay community is, from the inside out. Play your PR games with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

Unless you get off your high-horse and try to make a difference for good

Oh, I am. It's just not exactly what you had in mind.

And that's the whole point.

Not everyone wants to be in your faggy little club, and they're not going to begrudgingly sing your praises even though they disagree with you.

NDT and I as as different as night and day, and we are BOTH calling out the gay thought police. Robbie is more moderate than either of us, and he authored the original post.

Now go cry about it...

...you tired, bitter victim.

(How do I know? Please. This isn't my first time.)

[Jack Malebranche]

What you're doing is using insults to try to force gays who refuse to buy into your demands that all gays conform to your ideals to shut up. That might have worked back in your quivering-jello, lack-of-self-esteem-makes-me-fuck-everything-bare-and-shove-needles-into-my-arms day, but it's not going to fly with queers who have lived in the real world, know that not every straight person is Fred Phelps, and have figured out that the vast majority of people don't care if they're gay as long as they show up to work sober, pay their rent and taxes, and don't dance on their front lawns naked.

That was hot, by the way...very hot.

[louis]

NDT & Jake - is the hatred you two spew at members of and about your own a projection, or former projection of selves, or do you just REALLY hate your persons gay people at large?

And while you and and the like are quite the savvy rope treaders, at the end of both the day and your rhetoric, your nasty, bitter take on those who have done the really really hard and courageous work and continue to do so for the progression of our community, strongly relates to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You two and those of your ilk *do* indeed come off like a bunch of fucking ingrates.

[North Dallas Thirty]

NDT & Jake - is the hatred you two spew at members of and about your own a projection, or former projection of selves, or do you just REALLY hate your persons gay people at large?

Well, louis, here's the situation:

That night, standing there waiting for the light to change, I was spun around by a sudden outburst of shrieking, screaming and hollering. The gay teens had circled around one of their own, a tiny black queen, perhaps 14 years old, while she climbed up onto a parked car, stood on its hood, affixed an suction-cupped dildo to the windshield and began fucking herself on it. Her audience went apoplectic, their screaming echoed up and down the narrow canyon of storefronts and apartments. A boy, himself no older than 15, caught me looking and shouted, "What the fuck you lookin' at faggot? Ain't you never seen no queen take a dick before?"

Ignoring the damage to the car being made by the queen's heels, ignoring the sex act being performed in the middle of the street, ignoring the screaming and shouting, I stupidly mentioned the worst thing I could have. "Don't you kids have school tomorrow?" In an instant, half of the them had encircled me. I backed down the sidewalk towards my building's door, as they threatened to "cut me" and "fuck me up." When I knew I could make it, I turned and ran for my door, their hooting laughter bouncing down the sidewalk behind me.

I call that out for what it is -- public indecency, vandalism, and threatening to harm another person -- ironically, another gay person.

For doing that, I am accused by people like you of "hating my own kind" because the participants in question were gay. If that had been me, or if it had been my car, you would have told me to "suck it up" and "not make any trouble" because the thugs who did it are "my own".

Furthermore, it extends to other groups "approved" by the "gay community". I shouldn't criticize Democrats who want to strip gays of rights. I shouldn't criticize Louis Farrakhan for calling gays "filthy". I shouldn't criticize gay groups for spending tens of millions on homophobic candidates while taking money away from fighting antigay ballot initiatives to do it. I shouldn't criticize Cindy Sheehan for giving money to terrorist groups. I shouldn't criticize pro-abortion groups for promoting abortion and unprotected sex to black women, with the result that AIDS is now the leading cause of death among black men and women ages 25 - 44.

In short, louis, you're not criticizing me and Jack for "hating our own kind". You're criticizing us for refusing to conform to your belief that sexual orientation should dictate politics, religious beliefs, foreign policy, economic policy, and everything else that we do.

The gay rights movement started under the concept that gays were able to do everything straights could do. That was fine with Jack and me.

What the "gay community" now demands is that gays be different from straights in every respect -- politically, philosophically, etc. -- and conform to an exact set of views that are officially sanctioned as "gay".

In short, all you and your fellow "gay community" members have done is recreated fundamentalism with yourselves in charge.

Ignoring the damage to the car being made by the queen's heels, ignoring the sex act being performed in the middle of the street, ignoring the screaming and shouting, I stupidly mentioned the worst thing I could have. "Don't you kids have school tomorrow?" In an ins