Gay? Who cares?

Last Tuesday, the New York Times ran a front-page story on the diminishing allure of gay enclaves in the United States. The next day, the San Francisco Chronicle published a Page 1 story explaining how same-sex couples in California are a lot more socioeconomically and ethnically diverse -- read: less white and less wealthy -- than you might believe. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School will release a report today by demographer Gary Gates that all but poses the question: Is gay the new straight?
Gates' research on U.S. Census data drives home a point that the gay vanguard has been wrestling with for a while: The hedonistic, transgressive, radical ethos (and stereotype) that once characterized gay culture doesn't represent reality anymore. The decline of urban coastal gay communities, the increase in the gay population in the interior U.S. and the overall diversification of the gay population are facts. What's more, Gates argues, these trends are a function of the growing acceptance of homosexuality among the American public.
Acceptance? Really? Has Gates forgotten about the 45 states that have laws or constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, or the anti-gay discrimination bill that is stalled in Congress and faces opposition from the White House?
Not at all. There is, he says, a vocal, virulent -- and sometimes violent -- anti-gay movement, but it doesn't negate decades of opinion surveys that show a marked increase in tolerance in most Americans' attitudes toward gays and lesbians. In 1998, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of Americans thought that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. By 2007, that figure had risen to 59%.
Growing acceptance of homosexuality means a decline in social stigma associated with same-sex relationships, and a consequent shift in the politics of coming out. The more people come out, the more accepting people are around them, and the more accepting the public becomes, the more people come out.
Gates' study shows that the number of openly gay couples in the U.S. has quadrupled since 1990, and the biggest increases are in the country's more socially conservative areas.
Utah is the poster state. Between 1990 and 2006, for example, it went from having the 38th-highest concentration of same-sex couples in the country to 14th highest. In that same time period, the percentage of gay couples who lived in large cities declined from 45% to 23%. Even more counterintuitive, from 2000 to 2006, states that banned same-sex marriage had above-average increases in the number of gay couples. And places where voter referendums went against same-sex marriages saw even larger increases.
Some of the growth in the number of openly gay couples in conservative areas could be because of migration. And yes, some on-the-barricades members of the gay rights movement have gotten older and mellower and moved out to the heartland. But the larger trend is simply that as more gays come out, they don't need to change or assimilate to fit into the mainstream because they are already very much a part of it.
"The demographic characteristics of the gay population are converging with those of the mainstream," Gates says. If you're from a state like Utah or Nebraska, chances are you're going to share a lot with your neighbors whether you're straight or gay: "They're rural," Gates says, "they're religious, and they're Republican."
So what does this all mean for American culture at large?
"Society is beginning to say that being gay is not such a big deal," Gates says. "What that means for gays is that homosexuality won't have the centrality to their identity it once did. Being gay then becomes one of a variety of an individual's competing identities."
In other words, as the challenges associated with coming out diminish, so does the primacy of the identity that that act of self-discovery and self-assertion once forged. It means that the culture once associated with gay identity becomes less distinctive from the mainstream.
Gates doesn't believe that these trends spell an end of gay "associational" life. The process he's describing is not unlike the one experienced by so many immigrant or minority groups in America that fought against discrimination, moved beyond their enclaves and then felt a little sad that they lost the embracing sense of uniqueness and community that they once enjoyed.
As gays meld into the broader population, places like West Hollywood and the Castro district in San Francisco will inevitably lose some of their appeal. As more gays come out in more places, the diversity of homosexual politics and lifestyles will come out with them, and the tolerant will multiply.
For some of the pioneers from the edgy, embattled, ecstatic "good old days," this may be bittersweet. "But isn't that what everyone wanted 20 years ago?" Gates asks. "Just to be treated like everyone else?"
from The Los Angeles Times / Gregory Rodriguez

'POOFTER' License Plate Rejected

VIRGINIA - For 11 years, over nearly 200,000 miles, with the blessing of the state of Virginia, David Phillips has driven his Tracker with the "POOFTER" license plate, and nobody has complained -- not even when he parked at the British Embassy, where everybody knows "poofter" is British slang for a gay man.
"It's always a rolling good laugh for them," says Phillips, who is gay and chose his tags' message because "it's just an amusing word that I self-identify with."
The commonwealth of Virginia is not amused. It gave Phillips his vanity plates in error, Carolyn Easley, coordinator of the special license plates office, wrote in a recent letter. "You may have grown fond of your personalized plates," but they are "socially, racially or ethnically offensive or disparaging" and "you must return them." There was no explanation for why it took Virginia 11 years to figure out what "poofter" means.
They'll have to pry those plates from Phillips's cold dead hands, or something like that. The 42-year-old Arlington County resident, who works as a computer consultant, says he's not sending back the tags, even if the state has generously provided a prepaid envelope for that purpose.
The next step: a hearing in Richmond. But Phillips's chances are not good, because his case has been to the Word Committee, a panel of a dozen Department of Motor Vehicles employees who review vanity plate applications that have either drawn a citizen complaint or been flagged by a computer program that searches proposed plate messages -- forward and backward -- for obscene, explicit, excretory, violent or offensive content.
In Phillips's case, it must have been a citizen complaint that triggered the review because the state doesn't just randomly go back and reconsider plates that have been on the road for years. "We definitely rely on residents to report any inappropriate message," says DMV spokesman Melanie Stokes, who, citing privacy rules, won't comment on how Phillips's tags came in for reinspection.
If you, like Phillips, are amazed that the state would bother to spend tax dollars chasing after vanity plates, you'll want to grab the blood pressure meds before reading this: Hundreds of battles over personalized plates have used up untold government resources in a strange corner of the law that has some of the nation's top courts issuing contradictory rulings.
Ever since 1977, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshire could not stop residents from covering up the state's "Live Free or Die" motto on license plates, courts have struggled over who gets to decide what words may go on tags. States have denied drivers messages such as "GVT SUX," "WINE," "PUSHER," "QUICKEE" and even "ATHEIST."
But courts have pushed back: One federal appeals court ordered Missouri to approve "ARYAN-1," saying the state "may not censor a license plate because its message might make people angry." In Vermont, however, a federal appeals court said the state could ban scatological terms because that doesn't involve quashing any viewpoint.
In Virginia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit prohibited the state from banning a Confederate flag logo on a special license plate for the Sons of Confederate Veterans because that would be viewpoint discrimination.
The state did strip Alice Deighan and her partner, Scout, of their "2DYKES" plates a decade ago; the then-Alexandria residents' appeal was denied.
The lesbian couple's argument was the same as Phillips's. "This is how we identify," says Deighan, a social worker who now lives in Rhode Island. "We obviously weren't calling random motorists 'dykes.' This is what we call ourselves. There are a lot of things in the world that are offensive, but this wasn't one of them. If the word offends you on the road, don't look at it. But the word police wouldn't consider our argument."
Like many Virginians -- the state is No. 3 in the portion of drivers (12 percent) who personalize their plates -- Phillips uses his car to send messages. For a while, he had a sticker that altered the state's 400th anniversary Jamestown plates to say "400 Years of Oppression and Bigotry."
But his vanity plates were always more about having a chuckle over his personal identity than about making any political point. "People have to be into British humor or have some contact with that culture to have any idea what it means," Phillips says. He first heard the word in adolescence while watching Boy George appear on the old Phil Donahue talk show. "Some old British woman gets up and asks, 'So, Boy, when did you realize you were a poofter?' "
Then and now, Phillips found the name funny but hardly offensive. Merriam-Webster says "poofter" is "usually disparaging," and the Oxford English Dictionary calls the word "derogatory slang," but it's routinely aired on broadcast television, and Phillips says it's less disparaging than "nancy boy," which happens to have been his previous license tag message ("NANCBOY," for four years, with no complaint from the state). "Poofter," Phillips contends, "is a pretty neutral word. It gets past any e-mail filter."
Phillips will fight on to Richmond, but, as a realistic fellow, he's also looking ahead: "I wonder what they would do with a word like 'queer.' "
from The Washington Post / Marc Fisher

Prince Harry Licking A little Nipple

Have Prince William snort some Vodka and he will lick your nipples.
Lets have him snort a little more and see what he moves on too!

from DListed

No Gay T-Shirts In School

The Spencer-Van Etten School Board voted to review its dress code policy at Tuesday night’s school board meeting. This comes just four days after a tenth grader was asked to leave school because of the message on her t-shirt.
Now, 16-year-old Heathyre Farnham is speaking out.
"They definitely weren't mean, but they were just like, 'You gotta take it off,’” said Farnham.
On Friday, she wore a t-shirt to school saying, ‘Gay? Fine by me.’
She says her principal, Ann Sincock, said the shirt was inappropriate and asked her to change it, cover it up, or turn it inside-out. When she didn't, Heathyre was sent home. She says she's worn the shirt before and never had any problems.
"I haven't gotten anything bad, just a lot of support from people I don't even talk to who just appreciated what I was doing,” she said.
After community members spoke out at the school board meeting, Superintendent Steven Schoonmaker said Principal Sincock made the right decision.
"From everything I can tell, administratively, procedure was followed. I do think, in looking at the overall situation, that it really is an issue where we might have a flawed policy,” said Schoonmaker.
People we spoke to supported Heathyre, and her t-shirt.
"I don't have a problem with her shirt. I'm not one to decide what is and isn't appropriate for school. That's a job for the people in that room and the teachers and the principals,” said Spencer resident Doreen Hettich-Atkins.
"Something really needs to be done about this. And what's been done is just to make it seem like this town is more bigoted and ignorant, which isn't true, I think this town has a lot of potential. I think the issue that's being discussed is not helping that issue,” said former student Chloe Friedman.
In the meantime, Heathyre says she'll continue to wear her t-shirt -- even at school.
from WENY TV

Matthew Shepard Act Moves One Step Closer

The Democratic-led Senate on Thursday voted to let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, attaching the provision to a massive spending bill for the Iraq war and daring President Bush to veto the whole package.
The White House wasn't commenting on the prospects for a veto of the underlying defense authorization bill. But some Republicans warned that's just what would happen after the Senate voted by voice to accept the hate crimes amendment.
"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "This bill will get vetoed."
Still, the hate crimes provision attracted significant support from the president's party. Nine Republicans were among the 60 senators who voted to halt any filibusters and bring the matter to the final voice vote.
The White House stopped short of reiterating Bush's veto threat, issued earlier this year when the House passed the same hate crimes provision as a stand-alone bill. But presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino made clear that Bush believes the federal provision is unnecessary.
"State and local law enforcement agencies are effectively using their laws to the full extent they can," Perino said. She wouldn't comment on the prospects for a veto.
The provision has progressed to this point before. In the Republican-controlled Congress, the Senate in 2004 attached a similar measure to the same authorization bill, but it was stripped out during negotiations with the House.
This time, majority Democrats first passed the provision in the House. So the prospect of being stripped out during negotiations is less likely, leaving open the question of a presidential veto.
The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay college freshman who died after he was beaten into a coma in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo.
Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.
The bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions. Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.
Democrats and the provision's Republican supporters said the bill would create a safeguard in states that do not have laws against hate crimes committed based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And they insisted that the provision is relevant to the underlying military spending legislation because both are strikes against terrorist behavior.
"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."
That's a stretch, not to mention a heavy-handed maneuver that "hijacks" a bill that includes a pay increase for troops in wartime, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this," Cornyn said on the Senate floor.
During a test tally that preceded the final vote, nine Republicans were among the 60 senators who voted to support the amendment: GOP co-sponsor Gordon Smith of Oregon, Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner of Virginia and George Voinovich of Ohio.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., did not vote.
Republicans were careful not to attack the intent of the legislation, focusing instead on what they said was the "non-germane" nature of the amendment to the overall spending bill.
"There may be a time and place for a hate crimes discussion, but it is certainly not now when national security legislation is being held up," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl of Arizona.
Retorted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: "For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place."
from The Associated Press

Tila Tequila’s ‘bisexual’ dating show is another small step for MTV-kind.

Britney Spears' limp-wristed jiggle jiggle of an opener at this month's widely panned MTV Video Music Awards, suggested to some that the music station might be on its last legs of cultural relevance. Some say it sold out a decade ago; others argue that as soon as it became older than its target demographic (turning 25 last year), the station was officially too crusty to be cool.
MTV's latest effort -- a serialized bisexual dating show starring Tila Tequila, mistress of MySpace -- could be considered another sign of the station's shift from music network to sleaze peddler. But even if that's true, at least MTV is doing what it has always done best: making controversy while quietly breaking, or at least exposing, some pop-culture barriers.
Those of you who aren't Maxim subscribers or MySpace obsessives may not have heard of Tequila, the Singapore-born, Internet-bred girl who is ripe to become a bona fide B-lister. Her solicitation of well over 2 million "friends" on the social networking site and her off-kilter sexpot persona landed her on magazine covers, and even led Time magazine to dub her the "Madonna of MySpace."
And so, in two decades, MTV has gone from helping to create Madonna to counting on Tequila's half-proven celebrity appeal. On "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila," following the road-tested formula of VH1's "Flavor of Love," Tequila will welcome 16 straight men and 16 lesbian women into a mansion, where they'll all live for a scandalous season while vying for her affection. MTV's first serialized dating program represents a big commitment from a network devoted to the short-attention-span crowd, meaning we can expect as much squabbling, back-stabbing and pansexual make-out sessions as 10 episodes can hold.
But the main selling point for MTV and Tequila seems to be the bisexual angle, as both try to prove they're busting a taboo. Tequila, for her part, claims she's never come out as a bisexual before (though her MySpace profile suggests otherwise). MTV, meanwhile, gets to brag that "A Shot at Love" is the first bisexual dating show on a network not specifically targeted to the LGBT community.
But Tequila's description makes it clear that the show is not so groundbreaking as all that. As she writes in her slangy, all-caps way:

the show will be about me finding love as a BISEXUAL!!!!! THAT IS CRAZY RIGHT? ..... the only twist is that these guys and these girls have NO IDEA that I am bisexual and that they are competing against each others sexes!!! GUYS AGAINST GIRLS......WHO WILL I END UP HOOKING UP WITH????? WILL I BE STRAIGHT OR LESBIAN IN THE END?????

In other words, the old sexual categories remain, embedded in the structure of the show: guys against girls in the mansion, straight against lesbian in Tequila's heart, with little in the way of "bisexuality" in sight. And contestants will probably confirm many a sexual stereotype (straight guys making girl-on-girl jokes, lesbian women happily cavorting for them as if that were the point of being lesbian, and so on).
Still, at least the concept of bisexuality, and dating-while-bisexual, will be out there in MTV-land. MTV has always pushed sexual boundaries, whether it's airing those first Madonna videos (even if they were later pulled) or featuring anHIV-positive cast member on "The Real World" in the early 1990s.
These days, the envelope-pushing is more likely to amount to simple sleaze (try watching more than five minutes of "Spring Break" programming without feeling the need to shower). But even that sleaze can serve a higher purpose of sorts, particularly when much of pop culture remains homophobic. Young, impressionable viewers, while watching gay men or lesbian women compete for dates on MTV's "Next," are able to learn that gay and lesbian kids can be just as self-important and sex-starved as straight kids. And isn't that what has always united the MTV generation(s)?
The generation that actually grew up with MTV might insist it was the music that once united its audience. But that point has long since passed -- MTV simply hasn't kept pace with the many new ways would-be video viewers can consume music. Why watch in hopes that your favorite video will air when you can just go to YouTube?
Even if it helped invent the music video, MTV has long known it can't live on music alone -- it even made a show about two characters who sit around criticizing the videos. The station may once have been about songs, but it has always been about spectacle, whether of the political, socially conscious, crassly consumerist or just plain sleazy variety. "A Shot at Love" may manage all of the above.
from The Los Angeles Times

Gay Sick Perverts Prepare For Folsom Street Fair

Once again, San Francisco prepares for the perverted Folsom Street Fair where homosexuals, sadomasochists and others gather for public displays of nudity, beatings, group sex and public masturbation -- PART TAX PAYER FUNDED -- with police just standing by and watching.
This year, "Perverts Without Morals" chose to deliberately mock Jesus Christ, Christians and The Last Supper, by depicting half naked homosexuals, leather men and women as the 12 Apostles, and display sex toys in place of the bread and wine.
A bloody fist can be seen in front of the central figure portraying Jesus Christ, possibly representing the vile sex act of "fisting" - where one's fist is fully inserted into another individual's anal cavity.
Stephen Bennett, president of SBM and a former homosexual said, "This is the most vile, vulgar and disgusting public display of filth I have ever seen in my life. There is no doubt a double standard when Christians and Christianity are mocked by homosexuals and degenerates in such a blatant, vile and sick way. Where is the media outrage over this event? We Christians will no longer tolerate this abuse nor be silent.
"As Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America broke this story calling upon California's officials to take action, I am also calling upon every major media outlet from CNN, to FOX News to CBS, NBC and ABC News to alert the public to this horrific story to show what truly goes on in this sex 'street fair' in possible view of children."
Bennett ended, "I call upon the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, GLSEN, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to publicly condemn this blatant mockery of Christians and Christianity by some within their community, and condemn this sick public display of immoral behavior. I call upon the Miller Brewing Company to pull their endorsement of this event. I call for the organizers of this filth to immediately apologize to Christians worldwide and remove this Last Supper mockery. I also call upon every law abiding official and citizen in America who has any morals to do what they can to shut down this Folsom Street 'Filth' Fair once and for all."
from The Christian News Wire / Stephen Bennett Ministries