Wednesday, June 23, 2010


In a totally, I mean totally surprising (as in not at all) turn of events, another antigay individual is, well, GAY! Or, at least that's what is being alleged about a Lutheran pastor.

Here's the brief snippet from The Advocate website:

Lavender Magazine, a Minneapolis-based gay publication, has outed a Lutheran pastor critical of gay clergy after reporter John Townsend found the pastor, Rev. Tom Brock, at a confidential Catholic meeting for gay men struggling with chastity.

Brock is known for his denunciation of homosexuality, Townsend reported. His church, Hope Lutheran in Minneapolis, left the Evangelical Church in America last year as it liberalized its policy over gay clergy, and Brock has railed against ECLA’s decision to welcome partnered (and presumably sexually active) gay ministers.

The magazine’s president acknowledged that Townsend joined the support group, where he encountered the Rev. Brock, without revealing he was a journalist.

Brock is now on leave from Hope Lutheran, where another pastor called the magazine’s story “unconscionable.”

Here's the full article with a link to the full story in the magazine.

None of the above is really that important. Okay, it's important that the truth (alleged or otherwise) about the pastor was revealed. But for me, the important part of the article is the fact that "another pastor called the magazine's story "unconscionable".

Well, excuse the "F" out of me? It's wrong to out someone but not wrong for someone who is allegedly gay to denounce gays? Uh, what delusional world is that pastor living in? Certainly not the real world.

Wrong is wrong. If you're gay and promoting antigay, it's wrong. Yes, perhaps the reporter should have outed (oops) so to speak, himself, but then again, isn't the whole point of undercover investigation not outing (oops) yourself? I'm just saying . . .

The point is, the dear antigay pastor is allegedly a hypocrite, as are many other lawmakers out there passing antigay legislation while having men on the side.

The point is: it is not unconscionable that this pastor was outed. Okay, it is to a certain extent, especially if married w/children. A friend of mine and I get in some quite lively discussions over that subject. I'm not one for outing someone, even if they are passing antigay legislation, if they're married w/children. That's a whole other story, and a whole other set of complications and ramifications that are beyond my understanding.

Still . . . no matter my beliefs on the whole outing thingy, I think to call the outing unconscionable is, well, wrong! Yes, it's only my opinion, and probably doesn't count for much.

We live in a divided world where equality only exists for some people, and not all people. On a daily basis, gays and lesbians are denied equal rights. They are denied the right to marry, to care for their loved ones, to provide healthcare for their loved ones, and to enjoy equal status with heterosexuals because some people (unfortunately the ones with the most $$) feel that gays/lesbians are deviant, not natural, and that our sexuality is a choice and not genetics.

Well, enough said!

Okay, maybe not enough said. Let me tell you, and let my mother, for that matter tell you: I was born gay. My mother - 85, people, 85 - has made the statement: Scott, my favorite child (okay, she didn't say that, but I am her favorite) was born the way he was born, just as my other children were. I didn't make a choice, no more than any heterosexual out there made a choice to be heterosexual. They. Were. Born. That. Way!!!!! Geesh.

Yes, I know, there are people who will always, always, always, believe that gays choose their lifestyle (oh, you don't want me started on that subject, trust me on that). My being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than Elizabeth Taylor being straight. I was born that way. She was born that way! Enough! Said!

The unconscionable act here, was not the reporter (well, perhaps he bears some of the blame), but rather the allegedly gay pastor fighting against who he truly is as an individual and channeling that fight in a hateful, arrogant, and ignorant manner that does more harm than good. I'm just saying . . .

Friday, June 04, 2010

Perpetuating the Gay Stereotype

So, Logo (that's the gay channel for anyone wondering) is prepping for a new reality series called The Gay Housewives of New York! Yes, you read that right. No kidding on my part.

No, the series does not - at least to the best of my knowledge - star a bunch of lesbians.

The series, for all intents and purposes . . . oh, wait, why should I explain, when The Advocate did so well . . .

Gawker has done some digging and come up with a few of the men slated to take part in the first season of Logo’s upcoming Gay Housewives of New York series.

Amazing Race winner turned model-actor-author Reichen Lehmkuhl and his boyfriend, Brazilian model Rodiney Santiago, will appear on the show. Lehmkuhl relocated to New York earlier this year to star in the off-Broadway production of My Big Gay Italian Wedding.

Celebrity photographer Mike Ruiz, who is known for his work with stars including Tyra Banks and Dolly Parton, will also appear on the show. Ruiz is Los Angeles-based but travels to New York often for work.

Full article here.

I'm sorry, but these are not women, i.e., wives, but men. Yes, as a gay man I know that many within the gay community refer to each other as girl. I don't happen to like that fact, but I can't change that fact . . . other than not to use the term myself. These are men - anatomical correct men at that! They are not women, thus they aren't - at least not in the definitive sense of the word - wives. They might be husbands, but not wives.

Hollywood - motion picture, television, and whatnot - has an allegedly ignorant tendency to perpetuate the gay stereotypes. Okay, wait, perhaps not always mainstream Hollywood, but more network TV Hollywood. Will & Grace - you have two extremes: Nellie as can be Jack and straight-laced (no pun intended) Will, a good-looking man that just can't find a date. Trust me, that doesn't happen in the real gay world. 9 times out of 10, a gay male on Network TV is going to perpetuate the Nellie, effeminate, not a butch man stereotype, rather than the reality that only a small percentage of gay men are actually effeminate.

If, as many in the community want to end these stereotypes, then why do we continually allow - gay housewives anyone - the stereotypes to continue? Why is it all right for Logo to title a show The Gay Housewives of New York?

I don't know. I just know, as a gay man, that I'm more than a bit offended by this perpetuation of gay stereotypes. I've been partnered for almost sixteen years. I don't consider myself Frank's wife, but rather his husband, and vice versa. Frank's not my wife, but my husband . . . well, for all intents and purposes except legally since we live in a back-asswards country (for the most part)! I want to see gay men (and women, for that matter) realistically represented, and not just on Showtime. I want network television to quit portraying a minute percentage of the gay community, and portray the entire spectrum from effeminate to butch (in both gays and lesbians).

I'm just saying . . .


Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Biblical Misuse by Antigays

Sometimes, I don't need to say anything at all, because someone else said it much better. Case in point, the below article from Here's the link to the actual article.

Now, since this is me posting, I'm going to italicize/bold my favorite sections.

Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- My partner and I recently took our mothers to Las Vegas for a week for Mother's Day. It's not our favorite city, but for a pair of 60-somethings who can sit at the penny slot machines for hours, it was heaven.

When they were not being robbed by one-armed bandits, we saw a couple of shows and had some amazing dinners. We also enjoyed trying to figure out which women were hookers and which were just dressed like one. And of course saying "public drunkenness" is pretty redundant after 11 a.m.

But that's why we go to Vegas, right? Life on the Strip. What happens here stays here ... and all that good stuff. By the end of our trip, the four of us had seen just about everything you would expect to see in a place nicknamed Sin City -- except for faith-based protesters.

Funny, a week of walking up and down the main artery of the self-proclaimed heart of moral debauchery, and nary a Bible verse could be heard. In the many times I've been to Las Vegas over the years, I've never seen a religious protest. And yet let a midsize city try to add sexual orientation to its municipal nondiscrimination policy or a high school senior bring a same-gender date to prom, and you would think it was the apocalypse.

The Bible doesn't state that one sin is greater than another, but you wouldn't know that by counting the number of comments that quote Scripture on news stories about the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Compare them with how many address murder, or the environment, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and well, the word "hypocrite" comes to mind.

I am never ashamed to say I follow the teachings of Christ, but I am not always proud to say I am a Christian. That's because I am bothered by the continual mutilation of my religion's basic principle of love by the extremists in my religion who construct a hierarchy of sin -- which does not exist in the Bible -- for no other reason than to protect their own prejudices.

We've seen this throughout this country's history, and perhaps with the exception of abortion, no current issue illustrates this transgression more so than gay rights.

Some conservatives might attend church only twice a year, but ask their opinion about gays in the military. They can find Leviticus 18:22 blindfolded, handcuffed and sinking underwater: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination."

Rarely do you hear them mention the other "sexual sins" in Leviticus, such as making love to your wife while she's menstruating. There are some people who say Jesus freed us from the old laws with one side of their mouths while using old laws to condemn GLBT people with the other.

Many turn to the destruction of Sodom as proof against homosexuality. But the King James version lists fornication, greed and lying as sins committed in Sodom as well, and never specifies which particular sin caused God's wrath.

In fact, the word "Sodomite," which some like to toss around as an anti-gay insult, is a mistranslation and is not used in the original Hebrew text. The actual word is "kadesh," and it does not refer to the city, its inhabitants or a specific sexual act. It refers to the occult male prostitutes in the shrines, just as "kedesha" refers to the female equivalent. Neither word reflects sexual orientation.

It may be convenient to say Sodom was all about homosexual people, but historically and scripturally, that isn't accurate. This is why I, like so many other Christians, do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not ducking Leviticus, I'd just rather go directly to the source. Concepts get lost in translation, and we all know history is filled with influential people and institutions that have defined religion for the masses based upon their own selfish needs. For example, King Henry VIII, the man who authorized the first English translation of the Bible, was married six times and essentially had the British Empire separate from the Roman Catholic Church so he could divorce in peace. Then there's King James, whose own writings suggest he was secretly gay or bisexual, according to historians such as Michael B. Young and Caroline Bingham.

He was directed to marry for the sake of the throne before authorizing the version of the Bible that swapped "kadesh" for "Sodomite" in the first place. Hmm, where have we heard that story -- closeted gay politician with an anti-gay policy -- before?

But theology and history aside, it is clear from the lack of consistent reaction to and organization against the litany of other present-day sins that a large number of people who call themselves Christians do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible either. So, if some of us are picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow, why are so many opting to pick and choose verses that appear to condemn homosexuality and not the one against marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?
If sin is sin, why such Christian angst directed at the GLBT community and not the greedy corporate community, which, quite frankly, has more direct impact on the average person's life?

The answer is simple: Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices.

It's no different from Christian slave owners using Scriptures to feel better about enslaving Africans, or men pointing to Jezebel as a way to keep women out of the clergy, or Bob Jones University picking verses that supported the school's ban on interracial dating.

The extremists aren't fighting gay rights because of sin and honoring Leviticus 18:22. If they were, then where are the faith-based organizations spending millions trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10? Is 18:22 more true than 20:10, or does it just support a more common and entrenched prejudice?

LZ Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and, and has contributed to ESPN's Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is a 2010 nominee and the 2009 winner of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award for online journalism as well as the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing.