lgBtqia

          My Fruity Pebbles went flaccid and my coffee tepid as my roommate recounted his previous evening’s threesome. A threesome with a couple that just recently got engaged; a self-identifying heterosexual couple and a self-identifying bisexual male. 

          “I didn’t even really touch her. I mean, we made out and I massaged her breasts, but the whole time we were both focused on him.”

          “Wait, go back. How do you know these people?”

          “I don’t, that’s the crazy thing. He was cruising me at Pride. I thought she was just his fag-hag.”

          For its blinding misogyny, not homophobic nature, I shuddered at this terminology: “fag-hag.” I rattled off the checklist: alcohol, psychotropic substances and fatigue were all absent from this experience; so he recalled. The better part of my judgement says that if a twenty-something self-identifying heterosexual male has sexual relations with another twenty-something anatomical male then all claims to heterosexuality must be relinquished (especially when external forces can’t be blamed later on for the sexual rendezvous). Staring down at my gummy soup I smiled: the dawn of the bisexual is upon us. 

          As a confused adolescent I secretly self identified as a bisexual male for the better part of a year, long before I came out at 16. In my transition period between blithely accepting what society told me to be (heterosexual) and then finding my own voice, I waded/waited in the bisexual swamps. At 13, I was going steady with a wonderful self-identifying heterosexual female while simultaneously held captive by the sights, sounds, smells and touch in the locker-room. Discovering my sexuality wasn’t abrasive and short lived, there was a fluidity and incubation period: one day I’d fantasize about men, the next women. As male arousal increased in frequency and female fantasies slowly subsided, my self identification as a bisexual dissipated and morphed into homosexual.

          Society asserts this internment of sexual exploration as “curiosity” and “confusion” yet fails to define the experience as something qualifiable to produce a long lasting identity. As if to say, bisexuality is a phase or transition period between the constructed sexual binary: hetero versus homo. Quite possibly bisexuality is a transition period, but for how long? Months? Years? Decades? A life time? Our culture puts limits on this evolution, deciding that who this once self-identified bisexual dates/marries/engages will solidify their sexuality. Instead of allowing sexuality to be fluid and gray, the dominant groups our of society project this confusion onto the individual; disowning any sense of other. In reality, the dominant groups are confused because they can’t define, categorize or pigeonhole those that they desire to control and marginalize. 

          Last night I felt a calling to re-watch Craig Lucas’ “The Dying Gaul.” The climatic confrontation between the married male film producer and male screenwriter he was having an affair with still echos this afternoon: 

                    I’m sorry I don’t live up to your standards, trouble is       I’m bisexual; I like both. You want the truth, but-You’re               lucky to be all one thing. I’m not. I’m not hiding in my                 marriage, I need my marriage...and not just for business              reasons, Jesus Christ, half of Hollywood is out of the fucking      closet, they’re all on the cover of magazines, proclaiming their      pride, it’s not the old days... 

     - “The Dying Gaul” by Craig Lucas

Both the homosexual male and the heterosexual female have isolated the producer’s sexuality to a state of confusion and mistrust; granted he was cheating on his wife...

          So, here is an engaged male and female seeking the sexual experiences of a third party; my male roommate. There is immense beauty in their acceptance of exploration and fluidity of sex and sexuality: 

          “It was just so chill. Even this morning we had coffee in bed and all agreed we should do it again sometime.”

lg btqia

          “I have a phantom vagina.” 

          “No, you don’t.” 

I picked up a girlfriend at her house to catch up after my being away on vacation. I was seeking guidance as to whether I should label this post “lgbTqia” or lgbtQia” and a whole other conversation exploded in Washington Square Park. I responded:  

          “Yes, I do! It’s like I have a vagina on the inside. Well, not really, but it lies deep within my feelings of gender and sexuality.”

         “But, that doesn’t make sense. You never had a vagina to begin with. Amputee patients only have the sensation of phantom pains because of damaged nerve endings. You’ve never had a vagina.”

          “Isn’t it up to four week in the womb we are all anatomically female? Maybe my nerve endings never fully developed?”

“How in the world can you have phantom vagina?!”

I’ve had this conversation before and it’s by this point that inquisitive types start playing a mildly offensive, yet blatantly ignorant, rendition of $20,000 Pyramid: 

Me: “Trans...”

Contestant #1: “Transvestite”

Me: “Trans...”

Contestant #2: “Transexual”

Me: “Trans...”

Contestant #3: “Tranny”

Me: “Okay, this conversation is over.”

         But, the conversation is not really over, is it? America seems stuck on habitual binaries: male/female, rich/poor, white/black, Abrahamic Religions/other, educated/illiterate, healthy/sick, conservative/liberal- yet we know there is a middle ground, however people choose not to talk about it. The sense of “otherness” has been delegated second-class status. We have all read the news concerning a black female who is liberal, illiterate, sick and on welfare (eg: President Ronald Reagan’s infamous “Welfare Queen” scare tactic in the 1980s). I’ve always been under the assumption that second class meant you were second-to...“something.” I understand and deeply oppose racial minorities being deemed second class citizens by racial status. However, within the minorities (plural), who is in the majority? There is always another -other- second class (and they say America doesn’t have a caste system...). 

          I get confused when people call African Americans/Black people/Africaribiens (however you choose -to be all inclusive- to define the racial majority in the Equal Rights Movement) second class citizens, because, as a culture we have had a major racial discussion in the 1960s (granted, it’s far from over). Where and when was our Chineese-American discussion? Iraqi-American discussion? Latino discussion? There is a third class status to the white/rich/Christian/healthy/educated/conservative/male and second class to an iconoclastic dialectic of a minority; in this case: African Americans.   

          Quick, name three prolific leaders of any racial minority equal rights movement in America. Can they trace their heritage back to Afghanistan, U.S.S.R, India? Under the assumption that you answered “Martin Luther King Jr.”, “Malcolm X”, “Rosa Parks” or “Medgar Evers” it’s a list of African Americans. (César Chávez? Dalip Saund? Grace Lee Boggs? Bueller?...Bueller?) There is a second class to “white people” but when looking at the second class, it no longer becomes inclusive; creating a third class. Therefore, the American dominant/minority system cannot be held within a dialectic role as the minorities within the dominant minority system have little to no voice or visibility. On a micro level, yes, African Americans are second class citizens in this country with a long (and at times unparalleled) history of prejudice, injustice and bigotry that still continues to this day. However, on a macro- all inclusive- level, African Americans are first class minorities. 

          What about individuals of mixed race that can trace their ancestry back to two or more different continents; a very fluid definition of racial relations would ensue. Shit, gurl, sorry- back of the line! With too many intersectionalities you don’t freely exist in America. Weren’t we founded from a sense of “otherness?” (Happy forth of July weekend, anyone? I love America, but really?) 

          The point, dear. The point...(I digress.)

          Now change the lens to sex, gender and sexuality minorities. Play the same game: name three prolific leaders of the LGBTQIA movement. Do they identify as intersexual, queer or trans? Chances are they do not self identify outside of gay or lesbian. 

          No, the conversation isn’t over, because we, as a society, haven’t been present to more than two ideas simultaneously. 

          “It’s a phantom vagina! I love my penis! I don’t want a physical vagina!”

          “Scientifically, that’s impossible. I want to understand, yet I’m still pushing back.”

          “But, for me, it’s not scientific. It’s all built on intellect, emotions and feelings.”

          “You’re being closed minded. This is something new and not something everyone has experienced: feelings vs. emotions vs. cellular sensations.”

Our conversation continued, simultaneously. 

Faeries not Marries!

“News Flash!: NY State Senate: Gay Marriage: 33! Haters: 29”, “Yay for NY”, “It’s legal now!” My phone vibrated with such ferocity and frequency last night that, before I could check my text messages, I thought something important happened. Oh, the Marriage Equality Act passed the New York State Senate; the neutered LGBTQIA masses jubilate, this makes sense now. People were reaching out to me as if I was another cohort in their assimilation. I replied to each message, “I suppose.”

In late 2008 I wrote a letter to New York State Senator Charles Schumer urging him to set forth legislation that would give the same 1,138 rights heterosexual marriages accompanied to all of his constituents; regardless of sex, gender and sexuality (I was living in Queens at the time). I had the letter edited by my college advisor who, upon hearing the abstract, asked: 

“Why do you hate gay people?”

Me: “Don’t confuse ‘separate but equal.’”

Advisor: “That didn’t work for African Americans, Randy. Why is this supposed to work for gays?”

Me: “It didn’t work for all African Americans; assimilation is a slippery slope.”

______________________________________

Senator Charles E. Schumer 

United States Senate

313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Schumer:

          I would like you to introduce legislation to make civil unions for homosexual couples legal under federal law. According to the General Accounting Office, in 2003, there were 1,138 federal benefits from marriage; benefits which homosexuals are still not allowed to receive. I support the vote you placed in 1996 for the Defense on Marriage Act, so I would ask that you to consider introducing a Civil Union Protection, so that all individuals may receive the same benefits. 

          The ceremony of marriage has always been defined through history, as a union between a man and a woman, for the transference and sharing of property rights along with continuing blood lines.  The Oxford Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster Dictionaries all define marriage as a union between members of the opposite sex. Trying to fit two men or two women into something that is culturally defined, and historically has always been, between different sexes, does not make sense. Marriage between members of the same sex has not yet been defined on any level of cultural or political work outside of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Same sex relationships are something that is new in our society and therefore needs a new definition. 

          Under the protection of marriage, there are many benefits that only heterosexuals are able to receive. Social Security pension, Supplemental Security Income, income tax reductions, tax free transference of property, domestic violence protection, joint insurance benefits, funeral and bereavement leave, joint parenting, and visitation rights in hospitals; these resources are not given to all members of American society. Imagine, God forbid, that something were to happen to your wife Iris, or your children Alison and Jessica, and you have no federal right to be by their side in the hospital. No matter your race, nationality, gender, or sexual preference, being with the ones you love in a time of need is a moral and inalienable right. 

          Amendment Fourteen, Section One in the United States Constitution states that:            

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

I understand that the United States Constitution is interpretable and changeable. In the constitution, as it stands now, I cannot find a place where morally subjecting people is acceptable; this is why I request your leadership in bridging this divided country on the issue of same sex unions. The constitution holds rules with which we are governed by, then would not the exemption of rights for homosexual couples be deemed unconstitutional? The Words We Live By written by Linda R. Monk states, “The Equal Protection Clause prohibits unreasonable discrimination. If a law treats people differently, the state must demonstrate a good reason for that difference...the government must...prove a “compelling interest” in the law, if it involves a “fundamental” right.”     

          One of the major provisions which will need to be included when introducing the Civil Union Protection on the floor, is that civil unions should be clearly defined as the union between members of the same sex. As the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, has already passed, it would only be fair to give homosexuals a similar union that other sexual orientations may not enter into. Many opponents of gay marriage claim that including homosexuals into such a traditional and sanctimonious union would dissolve its validity. By creating civil unions that are strictly for members of the same sex, including the same benefits as a traditional marriage, both opponents and proponents may be satisfied. Let heterosexuals have their union just as homosexuals should have theirs. 

          I would like to make one thing very clear: I do not believe that homosexuals are entitled to join into the union of a marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and woman; just as you believe. I do believe, however, that all 1,138 federal benefits should be adopted under the Civil Union Protection. In a New York Times article published earlier this year, Alison Leigh Cowan makes the point that civil unions, as we know them today, do not do enough to protect same sex couples. Cowan interviews homosexual couples who say they are struggling by being in a civil union. Going thorough two different lines at customs, not knowing if their partner will receive benefits if the other is killed in the line of duty, extra-taxation for sharing health benefits; all of these problems have arisen out of this inadequate union. Federal applications still only have four “status” boxes: Single, Married, Divorced, and Widowed. Equality for all individuals of this nation is being over looked, I urge you again to change that.

         Opponents of a Civil Unions Protection, or CUP, would claim that it would violate state sovereignty by allowing the federal government the right to define civil unions between members of the same sex as apposed to accepting individual state definitions.  Such an act would alter all state constitutions and violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article Four-Section One of the United States Constitution. President-Elect Barack Obama has declared that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but the matter of federal benefits should be left up to the states. John K. Wilson, in his book, This Improbable Quest quotes Obama on his stance of the Federal Marriage Amendment, “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states."

          Another major opponent to CUP will most likely be homosexuals themselves. Growing up in a heteronormative society, children are taught that marriage is a goal in life. The American dream, as children are taught, is to go to school, then college, get a job, find a nice partner to settle down with and have kids. As a young homosexual grows up, it becomes very confusing how they are to fit into this structure. If our educational system taught children that it was acceptable to be a homosexual, this discussion of equal rights, as adults, would not have to take place. As we know though, you voted against the House Amendment 491: Homosexuality Education Amendment. The Amendment’s purpose, according to The Library of Congress Online, is to add, “An amendment to the Hancock amendment which would prevent funds authorized in the bill for being used to carry out a program or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” So now, we have homosexuals who believe they are inferior in a heterosexually dominate culture. Evan Wolfson, who many claim to be the father of the gay-marriage movement, says in his Freedom to Marry Pamphlet: 

The reason why any other status, call it what you will - civil union, domestic partnership, or schmarriage - is not adequate or fair in that one of the main protections that comes with marriage is, indeed, that status of marriage. When you say, “We’re married,” everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you’re building your life with. That clarity, security, and dignity —intangible though they may be—is precious and irreplaceable.

           The symbols we have attached to marriage as a society have altered the way we look at the union of committed couples. Because we have a broken educational system, attempting to be ran by the federal government, drastic measures must take place at the federal level to ensure that, despite popular opinion, our government is looking out for their people. As of now, the most recent Gallup Poll shows congress’ approval rating at an abysmal 19%. According to the 2000 Census, New York State has the fourth highest concentration of homosexual households in the United States; impressive for third largest state in the union. Homosexuals make up a good portion of your constituency.

          While CUP may be seen as unconstitutional, DOMA is just the same and has yet to be repealed. Two wrongs do not make a right, but in searching for a political solution in the gay-marriage debate, a democratic bargain must ensue. “Marriage” is a word that carries a great weight in our society and I ask you to help take some of that burden off by offering all citizens of the United States the right to federal benefits. I am not asking you to redefine marriage. I am asking you to define civil unions as a federally recognized partnership for homosexuals to include all of the benefits of a heterosexual marriage. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Randy 

_____________________________________

Outside of grammatical errors my advisor left the margins of the draft empty and concluded at the bottom of the letter: “Interesting...” What an astonishing economy with words...

With unparalleled wit, a lesbian text me last night: “Let’s get married!! Oh. You mean...oh, I get it...”, Justin Vivian Bond’s Twitter feed read: “Welcome to the new gay conservatism!” and I sighed: ‘one step sideways.’

Lgbtqia

“We’re here, we’re dykes, we’re fabulous, don’t fuck with us!” I couldn’t even see what was happening, but the dykes at street level- a block away- were coincidently drowning out JD Samson from my stereo. At a steady pace the powerful snare drums signaled the dykes were marching through the trenches of Washington Square West toward the territorial battleground known as ‘The Gayborhood.’ Signs were unevenly dispersed throughout the fifty-or-so soldiers on foot:“Drag Kings”, “Girl Jocks”, “Gender Queers”, “Tom Boys”, “Queer Grrrls”, “BI-DYKE”, “Femmes”, “Butches”, “Dawgs for Dykes” and “Womyn of Color.” The battle cry grew louder and impassioned: “We’re here, we’re dykes, we’re fabulous, don’t fuck with us!” Sensation aroused within me and I felt compelled to rush down the flight of stairs and join my family. True, I’m not a dyke, but they did have a sub-section for a gender queer intersectionality. I teeter unsteadily between a second wave and third wave homosexualist ideology and empowered by third wave feminist principles. That afternoon the second wave homosexualist trumped the third wave feminist in my head: “Randy, it’s a fucking dyke march for womyn...just grab your camera.”

I get confused, more often than not, that I’m not a member of the lesbian population. My socialization into the realm of gender, sex and sexuality has been predominately fostered from a women’s lens: public school teachers, musicians, college advisors, authors, professors, colleagues, doctors, artists and dear friends. If ‘I think and therefore I am’ then... Never mind, post hoc ergo proctor hoc; I am therefore because of it. 

Still stuck on these subsidiaries of the Dyke March (eg. drag kings, femmes, tom boys) I wondered what a Faggot Mach would look like. Could there be a Faggot March? I doubt it. The gay population seems hung up on a binary: twink and jock (with the former trying to transition to the later at all costs.) Sure, there is one other division of the gay population- bears- but the community seems predicated on weight and body hair; a derelict of sex and sexuality in breach of gender. Gender in the gay community, as a whole, seems to be in high disregard if it falls out of the dominant culture’s binary of male and female. Contrarily, lesbians are more inclusive vis-à-vis gender, sex, and sexuality. 

So, then, why are lesbians transitioning into self-identifying as “gay?” More and more, I’m confounded by women’s self-identification as “gay.” Already subjugated and relegated as second class citizens because of their biological anatomy and gender, are women choosing to be labeled gay, because it has been delegated a man’s status? Gay men hold the dominant role among sex, gender, and sexuality minorities. Duh, yes, they’re men. (The second and third wave feminists in my head can’t stop bickering.) The seven pillars of the gender, sex and sexuality minority intersectionalities (LGBTQIA) are differentiated for what other purpose, than to label. 

Me: “She’s 'gay'?”

Friend: “Yeah, “gay.”

Me: “No, she’s a lesbian.”

Friend: “Whatever, she likes ladies. It’s what she calls herself.”

As sex, gender and sexuality evolve their classifications transition; definitions advance. The separatist inside of me cringes to think that these modes of categorization are melding together too quickly before we’ve been accepted by the dominant culture and for the objectives they use for integration/assimilation. On the other hand, for shame the dominant culture in not being built on acceptance. 

For now, though, I’ll just take pictures in my vicarious one person movement- there was no “Gay” sign at the Dyke March.

lgbtqiA

I turned the Jeep into a ravine, planting the front right wheel into a gaping pit and arrested the four ton vehicle in a forty-five degree angle. Dad and I had just reconstructed the front bumper, grill and mount of the Jeep after I had mistakenly turned into a Dodge Ram two weeks prior. Now, I had to call my parents, at the age of sixteen, to tow this unabashed display of overcompensating hegemonic masculinity out of the dirt; the Jeep, too. My sexual identity cracked, dented and tore its way to the surface just as I had maimed every car the family utilized; the attempts to hide the blemishes were futile. My parent’s Suburban rolled to a slow halt, thirty painful minutes later, with the dent I engraved on the driver’s door- using a metal shelf at a drive thru window- glistening in the moonlight.

My parents love gay people. Not ‘like’ nor ‘appreciate’ gay people. No, with an undying devotion and conviction, my parents have a place, in their gigantic hearts, for lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender and intersex people. I’ve never been able to understand where this love comes from; it confuses the hell out of me. To be fair, though, it took time to get to this realization.

After the “why” stopped interrupting the “how” for the last ten minutes from both of my parents, two words shut down the entire conversation about the Jeep and began an ever evolving forum regarding sex and gender. Mom sat at the kitchen table in silent shock, the wind withdrawn from my Dad’s verbal berating and I, shaking at the kitchen counter, the room took a deep breath; I had declared my sexuality to Mom and Dad. 

This Spring, nine years later, my parents phoned to talk about a group their church is starting to discuss homosexuality and the Bible. More specifically, the pastor asked my parents to organize and run this meeting/workshop/forum: 

Me: “Who is this for? Parents? Kids? The community?”

Mom: “I don’t know. Parents, I think, dealing with their child being gay.”

Dad: “What should we call it?”

Me: “God loves fags.”

Mom: “Randy, no.”

Me: “Okay, LGBTQIA and the Bible.”

Both: “What?”

This blog was set up under the advisement of a dear friend who has been subject to many of my late night rants against the straight world and my LGBTQIA brethren. I intend for this place to be an open forum- to give and receive information; cultivate sociological and theological discourse for my parent’s workshop. I’m sure there will also be the occasional diatribe when I’m channeling Larry Kramer. 

One thing is clear, though: I love 99.99% of the Earth’s population though it may not seem like it. I may not understand why people do the things they do sometimes, but true to my parent’s form I was taught to love first and ask questions later.