"It's not a choice. It's the way we're built"

Andrea Huang

Members of LGBTQ have historically been discriminated by society for an array of reasons – being too flamboyant with their ways, liking same-sex individuals, and simply just for being different, to name a few. But on the opposite end of the spectrum, society has also viewed gay people with a tendency to be more creative and talented than the average folk. With that being the case, in addition to gay couples not having children the traditional way, they have more discretionary income to spend than the average family.  Even though the majority of society may still be stuck in their hard-headed ways of frowning upon homosexuality, over the past few years businesses have employed the media, turned over a new leaf and started marketing towards gay people. Subaru’s slogan for the millennium, “It’s not a choice. It’s the way we’re built” speaks more than just it’s transmissions. Using Eli Clare’s experience and John D’Emilio’s analysis of homosexual’s experiences, I will have to argue that Subaru’s marketing strategy is genius in that it embraces the gay community into society, effectively relates to all gay individuals, and stimulated their sales during a recession.

            Despite societal norms and cultural taboos, Subaru’s Chief Marketing Officer Tim Mahoney decided to challenge America’s conservative views towards homosexuals. Subaru became the first American automaker to tap into the gay community in the 90’s, and brilliant for doing so (Kinsey, Matt, 2009). In the modern world it is essential to have a car in order to have a comfortable and convenient life. If one were to survey a middle-class neighborhood, they would expect to find at least one to two cars per household. In 2009, (a year into the start of the current recession we are in) Subaru sales went up 10%. Their decision to equip its vehicles with all-wheel drive coincided with their slogan, “It’s not a choice. It’s the way we’re built”, a statement easily relatable to anyone that identifies as being gay.

Naturally, human beings do not have a choice in the person that they are. People are born with a certain personality, disposition, sexual orientation. If they do change a certain aspect of who they are and how they feel, normally it is due to external pressures by outsiders, or even family and friends. D’Emilio describes the typical homosexual experience in “Homosexuality and American Society”, as one that is lonely and often painful due to the dominantly heterosexist society and views (D’Emilio, 18). This has led them to suppress and hide themselves away from the limelight, a prime example of homosexual oppression.

Eli Clare describes in her “Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies: Disability and Queerness” article, that in order to eradicate oppression one must transform their mindset from seeing disability or homosexuality as being wrong, to one that sees no harm in bodies being built the way they are (Clare, 363).  In this context, serious work needs to be done to reconstruct the belief that there is a right or wrong for being a certain way. When it comes to human sexuality or bodily defects, people need to be accepted for the way they are or it poses the threat of alienating that group of people. Subaru has done a tremendous job in using the media to market to the gay community and increase sales, not just for the benefit of profit, but because it is the right thing to do.

Bibliography

Clare, Eli “Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies: Disability and Queerness”

D’Emilio, John “ Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview” from Sexual

Politics, Sexual Communities in the United States 1940-1970. Chicago, III: University of Chicago Press, 1983

Kinsey, Matt. (2009, 10 28). GLAAD honors gay-friendly brands at inaugural media awards in advertising [Web log message].

Gay Marriage, Media, and the Tube of  You



Mason Hill


    Since Johannes Gutenberg invented the modern version of the printing press in the Thirteenth Century, people have been highly influenced by written language and printed word. Since then, media has evolved into the modern context and includes print, radio, television, and the internet. Media has taken over on how society views issues because of how images are portrayed and how information is presented. I argue that because of this power to influence the public, it is essential that the LGBTQ community have positive figures represented in the media and that Youtube.com should be considered a part of that media. In using the works of Jasbir Puar and Gayle Rubin, I will discuss media representation of the LGBTQ community and Youtube.com videos that focus on gay marriage and the family life of same-sex couples. 

Youtube.com is an internet sensation that has gone viral - daily reaching tens of millions worldwide and should be considered media because media is defined as any “means of mass communication” (Oxford Dictionaries). With this in mind, it is important to note that Youtube.com is unique in that it is controlled by the individual participants - what videos the supplier posts and what the consumer chooses to watch. This individualistic aspect of Youtube.com helps control the representation of LGBTQ community members, and is being used to positively receive support for gay marriage.

A Youtube.com video entitled “Zach Wahls Speaks About Family” has reached over sixteen million people. Wahls’ speech to the Iowa House of Representatives about his gay-raised family has been an amazing contribution to positive media representation on gay marriage. He states that much debate on the issue is about the family aspect and the question of “can gays even raise kids” (Youtube.com 2011) He thwarts these and other oppositions with personal life stories where his eloquence, intellect, boldness, family pride, and personal life success come across in the short three minutes of the video. Wahls even goes as far to announce that “If I was your son, Mr. Chairman,  I believe I’d make you very proud” and concludes with “The sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character” (Youtube.com 2011) This video of a young man speaking from the inside workings of a gay family has helped millions see how a gay couple can succeed in raising a family and helps bolster the fight for marriage equality here in America.

However, Youtube.com is only a fraction of the media as a whole. Jasbir Puar and Gayle Rubin discuss the detrimental effect that media has had on the LGBTQ community. Puar discusses the aftermath of September 11 and how the media played a crucial role in turning Americans against Middle Eastern individuals through the use of LGBTQ images. The image of Osama Bin Laden getting anally penetrated by the statue of liberty has led to homosexual hostility that totally undermined the LGBTQ efforts leading up to September 11. The media’s repetitive use of these images has lead to the “quarantining of the terrorist-monster-fag” and has encouraged “aggressive heterosexual patriotism” (Puar 2002). Had these images not been used, today’s view of homosexuality would be different, but we can only speculate as to how different those views would have been.

Gayle Rubin discusses the media’s role in creating the socially accepted idea of “sexual behaviors” and explains how the “mass media nourish…attitudes with relentless propaganda” (1993). This overkill of “relentless” media coverage is exemplified in another Youtube.com video where eighteen news stations declare Conan O’Brian officiating a publicly televised gay marriage as “pushing the envelope” (Youtube.com 2011). Through this repetitive representation of a gay marriage, the overall message and significance of the event was underappreciated and neglected. The media did not focus on the actual love between costume designer Scott Cronick and David Gorshein, but how the heterosexual world would view this marriage on American late night television.

Thus, the representation of the LGBTQ community in the media affects queer social acceptance into heterosexual society. Jasbit Puar and Gayle Rubin both express the significance and negligence of negative media portrayal, whereas Zach Wahl is one of the first positive representations of the LGBTQ community seen on Youtube.com. All in all, it is vital for the LGBTQ movement to receive positive representation in the media, and Youtube.com is the first media outlet that is being used to do so. 


Works Cited

“Zach Wahls Speaks About Family.” Youtube. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

“Media Reacts to Conan’s Same-Sex Wedding News.” Youtube. 2011. Web. 22 Feb.     2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4 

“CONAN: The Wedding of Scott Cronick and David Gorshein.” Youtube. 2011. Web. 22     Feb. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S3lujuNV-0

“Media.” Oxford Dictionaries. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.     http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/media

Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”     from Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies ed. Peter M. Nardi and Beth     Schneider

Puar, Jasbir. “Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War of Terrorism and the Production of     Docile Patriots” in Social Text 72 Vol. 20 No. 3, Fall 2002.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S3lujuNV-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4
 

Bullying On and Off The TV Screen

Last year, the Golden Globe winning series Glee aired a series of episodes that addressed the issues of bullying against homosexuals.  The gay character, Kurt, ended up leaving the high school that allowed such bullying to happen for a private, zero-tolerance school.  This gay character eventually came back to the original high school and his former bully made a public apology.  This episode included songs that celebrated acceptance such as Lady Gaga’s gay pride anthem “Born This Way.”   It is noted in by an article in Huffington Post that conservatives reacted strongly to this moment of gay pride and acceptance in a high school.  Fingers were pointed toward the show’s creator, accusing him of having an agenda that goes against Christian beliefs.  Conservatives were also quoted for their concerns about allowing their children to watch this show as it presents immoral sexual orientations.  The apologetic actions in Glee were certainly not reflected in the show’s criticisms.  The want to participate in gay relationships, including marriage, is shot down at an early age.  If schools create more awareness of homosexual equality then maybe future generations will be more open to gay culture and marriage.

            This TV series brings up important issues that many LGBTQ students face in high school. Creators of Glee recognize the mass media potential of the show’s popularity and use this to their advantage by productively calling attention to anti-gay bullying.  According to Nan Stein, bullying includes “any act of meanness, exclusion, threats of any sort, as well as physical assaults.” (pg. 31) The high school which Kurt attended did not proceed to punish bullies for their repeated harassments.   This behavior is unacceptable and schools should enforce strict repercussions.  Klein explains that schools should embrace a “zero-tolerance” policy in which behaviors are noticed, commented on, and corrections are made.  I agree with Klein in that it is a schools responsibility to institute classroom education, provide support for students, and create a safe space.  Unfortunately, funding for such programs is limited.

            Not all students are as lucky as Kurt and have access to a private school that does provide a safe space against anti-gay bullying.  This leaves many homosexual students to face bullies in their own.  Theo Van De Meer states that “most of the perpetrators of anti-homosexual violence will probably never be brought to justice” and that this is often because victims do not file charges (pg. 61).  In the case of Kurt in Glee, the violent actions against him were reported, however, this did not help.  It should also be noted that the main bully ended up being gay himself, so his anti-gay actions were an attempt to hide this.  This extreme attempt to hide his true self and force attention elsewhere relates to Van De Meer who explained that within peer groups there is a need to uphold their defining features such as masculine or feminine and strong versus weak.  Kurt’s bullies, members of the football team, were trying to maintain the perception of their strength and ruling status. 

            Bullying happens in many forms and can be performed by all kinds of people; it is not just something that happens in TV shows.  Conservatives and critics of Glee should recognize that bullying should not be acceptable in schools as that was the real message of this story-line.  Instead, they neglect these issues and focus instead about how their wants as viewers are not being met.  A safe space may not be accessible at home, so it is schools’ job to create one. 

Stein, Nan. "Bullying, Harassment and Violence among Students." Teaching Beyond Tolerance Winter.80 (2007): 48-54. Print.

Van De Meer, Theo. "Bashing a Rite of Passage?" Culture, Health and Sexuality 5.2 (2003): 153-64. Print.

Zakarin, Jordan. "'Glee' 'Born This Way' Lady Gaga Episode Addresses Gay Bullying, Sparks Conservative Protest." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Apr. 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/glee-born-this-way-lady-gaga-gay-conservative_n_854193.html>.

                

Modern Homosexuality

In 2009, ABC Network began airing the show “Modern Family,” which holds millions of viewers each week still today.  The hit comedy is about how three different families are all connected and deal with everyday challenges.  The most “untraditional”, and arguably the funniest, couple on the show is Cameron and Mitchell, two white middle aged men who have an adopted 3 year old daughter.  Although Cameron and Mitchell are not married on the show, their relationship presents important matters of being homosexual to a large audience. Yet, they do this in a subtle and comedic, thus accepting manner.  The producers of this show ease their way into the controversial topic by first just allowing a gay couple to be on television, never showing them kiss, and never talking about their anger at not being able to marry.  By not being so upfront about the issue, and not explicitly talking about gay marriage, they prove ways in which a homosexual couple can break stereotypes and defy beliefs about their inability to raise children in a healthy, wholesome home.  This subtle and comedic approach is a smart strategy to bring a positive view on homosexuality into American homes.

The first stereotype that this couple breaks is that all gay couples have one stronger or masculine member and a weaker, more passive member, which therefore establishes their roles during sexual encounters.  In his article “Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual; Identity and Behavior,” Tomas Alamaguer writes that “Unlike the European-American system, the Mexican/Latin-American sexual system is based on a configuration of gender/sex/power that is articulated along the active/passive axis and organized through the scripted sexual role one plays” (Alamaguer 110).  In the show, Cameron and Mitchell have both masculine and feminine roles throughout different episodes, making it difficult to assign a certain role to either character.   Throughout most episodes, the show plays on comedic instances where Cameron or Mitchell’s sexuality dominates how they react to things or their interests, but  there are still episodes that display their “macho” characteristics, making it unclear as to which partner takes the role of the “man” in the relationship.  Cameron’s “masculine” scene can be seen in the episode “After the Fire” (http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi85237273/) where he wants to prove to his nieces that a gay man can drive a truck, and Mitchell’s can be seen in “Dude Ranch” (http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi441031705/) where he blows up a bird house with his nephew and actually enjoys it.  By displaying both gender roles by both of the partners, Cameron and Mitchell are proving Alamaguer’s statement and disproving the belief that most people have about homosexual roles in a relationship.

The second way that Cameron and Mitchell defy popular mentality is through their relationship with their daughter, Lily.  When discussing initial reactions to homosexual behavior in the 1950s, D’Emilio writes “it seemed to constitute an appropriate response to behavior that offended common decency, violated accepted norms, and threatened the welfare of society” (D’Emilio 23).  We would like to think that this type of mentality has died out, but it is still very alive today, and is in fact, a big argument against gay marriage.  Many believe that homosexuals threaten societal norms, especially by the fact that they cannot have or raise children.  However, Cameron and Mitchell prove this mentality wrong by raising their daughter in a respectful home with popular, “heterosexual” values.  The show illustrates an example of a problem that many parents face with their child in the episode “Little Bo Bleep” in which Lily says the “F word.”  Cam and Mitch are obviously concerned and debate over what is the best way to go about teaching Lily that that word is inappropriate (http://abc.go.com/shows/modern-family/episode-detail/little-bo-bleep/916288).  This episode shows that a gay couple goes through the same kinds of issues with their child as would a straight couple and that they still teach them good values.

Modern Family is media’s way of showing us that publicizing homosexuality in a humorous and nonthreatening way can lead to gay awareness and greater acceptance of gay marriage.  Acceptance of the gay couple on the show will hopefully lead to acceptance of gay couples in general in order to finally give every person the right to marry whomever they want.  And beyond that, to allow Modern Family to finally throw Cameron and Mitchell the wedding they have always dreamed about.

Bibliography

“After the Fire.” Modern Family. ABC. 16 Nov. 2011. Web

Alamaguer, Tomas. “Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual; Identity and Behavior.”  Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies. Peter M. Nardi and Beth Schneider, 1998.

D’Emilio, John. “Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview” Politics, Sexual, Communities in the United States 1940-1970, Chicago Ill:University of Chicago Press, 1983.

“Dude Ranch.” Modern Family. ABC. 21 Sept. 2011. Web.

“Little Bo Bleep.” Modern Family. ABC. 18 Jan. 2012. Web.

The Dual Role of Mass Media

The Dual Role of Mass Media

                                                                                                                Ruiqi Ye

       In the episode White Wedding in season seven of Grey’s Anatomy, the lesbian couple Callie Torres and Arizona Robbin finally get married in Seattle after they have been through all the ups and downs of relationship within two years. Although in the absence of a priest, a church, or even Callie’s parents, Callie and Arizona hold their hands and make vows. Their illegal yet romantic wedding is a reaction to the current political issue, gay marriage. By focusing on Callie and Arizona in the episode White Wedding, I will examine the dual role that mass media plays in shaping our attitudes towards homosexuality. On one hand, mass media reinforces stereotypes of gay people and favors the privileged; on the other hand, it also promotes tolerance towards such privileged group and benefits them in the discourse of gay marriage.

       The stereotypes hidden in Grey’s Anatomy become crystal clear when we scrutinize the backgrounds of Callie and Arizona. Callie and Arizona are both white, middle-class females who hold decent jobs as surgeons at the fictional Settle Grace Hospital. According to Barbara Smith, people tend to perceive gay individuals as white, middle class, and males (113). In the context of Grey’s Anatomy, although Callie and Arizona are females, they possess the major features in the stereotype, which are white and middle-class. This link between gay people to a specific race and class, as Smith further argues, “undermines consciousness of how identities and issues overlap” and ignores the minority of homosexuals who are “people of color and working class and poor and disabled and old (113).” Another stereotype presented in Grey’s Anatomy lies in the space that Callie and Arizona occupy—the big city Seattle. According to Mary Gray, urban spaces are symbolized as “dynamic”, “forward-thinking”, and “brimming with potential”, while rural is defined as “what urban is not”, “static, traditional, and inadequate” (52). In Grey’s Anatomy, Callie and Arizona are able to work as attending surgeons and hold their romantic wedding in a public garden because they are in an urban city, where citizens are characterized as modern and open-minded. Together, Callie and Arizona reinforce stereotypes about homosexuals regarding race, class, and space and contribute to the construction of homonormativity; this politics not only favors a privileged type of gay people (like Callie and Arizona) who can be incorporated into a heterosexual society, but also ignores the existence of homosexual minorities.

       Although Grey’s Anatomy rearticulates the overwhelming stereotypes of gay people, it deliberately urges us to ponder over gay marriage by presenting the conflicts between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Despite the fact that they are the privileged in LGBTQ communities, Callie and Arizona encounter tremendous difficulties in White Wedding. In part 1, Callie’s mother Lucia, a religious Christian, leaves before Callie’s wedding because she refuses to watch her daughter commit a sin. “Do you know how devastating it is to raise a child, to love a child and know you won’t see that child in heaven?” Lucia asks sadly. In addition, the priest arranged to marry Callie and Arizona is unable to show up due to his wife’s car accident. As a result, they have to move their wedding from a church to a garden. In spite of all the odds, this lesbian couple succeed in marrying each other and their marriage conveys the positive message that things will work. As their colleague Dr. Bailey says, “you do not need the law or a priest or your mother to make your wedding real” and “if you are willing…to give yourself in that kind of partnership in better or worse in sickness and in health, honey, that is a marriage(Part 2).” Ironically, another heterosexual couple of doctors working at the same hospital are getting married simultaneously, but in the marriage license office. This intentional contrast between a homosexual wedding and a heterosexual one compels us to reevaluate human rights and privileges. White Wedding challenges the prevalent denials of gay marriage and gay people as human beings who deserve a marriage license by rendering a homosexual couple visible in mass media.

       Through my analysis of the lesbian couple Callie and Arizona from Grey’s Anatomy, we can see how mass media plays a dual role in the portrayal of gay couples. Mass media restricts gay people to a particular type in terms of race, class, and the space they occupy; however, it also promotes acceptance of gay marriage and homosexuals, especially the privileged ones, via increasing representations of them in TV programs. Overall, mass media expands the visibility of the dominant group while neglects the minorities in LGBTQ communites.

Works Cited

Smith, Barbara. “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. ed. Henry Ablelove. New York & London, Routledge, 1993. Print

Gray, Mary. “From Websites to Wal-Mart: Youth, Identity Work, and the Queering of Boundary Publics in Small Town, USA.” American Studies 48.2 (2007): 49-59. Web.

“White Wedding.” Grey’s Anatomy. Abc. 5 May. 2011. Web.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liqkc3izikI (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=wyh12X5Cpaw (part 2)

Barney Takes a Stand

Andrea Huang

Since the late nineteenth century, when the wave of religion and conservatism swept through Western societies, members of LGBTQ have become increasingly marginalized and persecuted. Their sexual differences have been seen as unclean and are shunned upon by the majority of society. In a progressive era where racial barriers and class systems have been broken down, it is time to think about the rights for people that are part of LGBTQ. Congressman Barney Frank (Democrat-Massachusetts), one of the first lawmakers to be openly gay, continues to mark a revolutionary point in history by announcing his intentions to marry his longtime partner, Jim Ready two weeks ago. In this blog post I will use Gayle Rubin and Barbara Smith's ideas behind the history of sexuality, why it is important to think about it now, and tie it back to Congressman Frank who is taking a radical step towards liberating sexual minorities in the face of law.

Luke Johnson of The Huffington Post reports from Washing that "Barney is planning to get married to his partner Jim Ready. The ceremony will take place in Massachusetts" (2012). It seems that the wedding ceremony is to take place in Massachusetts not just because it is Congressman Frank's home state, but also because it is one of only six states, and the District of Columbia, to grant same-sex marriages. It was of great importance for the lawmaker to set a personal example for gay rights activist, as he says, "It's one thing to say 'I'm not prejudiced against a person who is gay,' it's an entirely different matter to accept that person in their personal relationships. So over the past five years or so, Jimmy [Ready], my partner, and I have made it a point to attend events together, to go to public places as a couple. It is important people see that" (2012). His public relationship with Jim Ready and his intentions to marry him is a rebellion against socially-constructed norms and behaviors that embody the message of it being a necessity to extend equality and justice to gays in the United States.

Gayle Rubin (1993, 144) asserts that the institutional forms of sexuality are a site of conflict and were created by human activity. This conclusion can be easily drawn if one were to trace back in time through history. Research and data have revealed ground-breaking evidence of a vivacious culture in prostitution existing in 70 A.D. Pompeii, Italy.  Both opposite-sex and same-sex prostitutes were available for choosing without any judgment on behavior. If this kind of sexual freedom existed so long ago, then it must be that over the course of almost 2000 years, society's attitudes have turned against the idea that there is a whole spectrum of sexuality, and set just one gold standard.

So what accounts for this shift of thought?

Is it because people have become increasingly homophobic? As Barbara Smith (1993, 113) argues, people are usually threatened by issues of sexuality, and the mere existence of homosexuals put their own sexuality in question. But say it does put our sexuality in question, a lot of us do not dare to experiment around with it because of the implications associated with that. Many Western society's current laws that sexually oppresses people date back to the moral crusades in the late nineteenth century. There was a trend towards conservatism, religiousness, and when psychology and medicine took power, they exploited the trends and redefined sexuality in a way that eliminated what they thought to be 'undesirable' (Rubin 1993, 152).

In light of this analysis on sexuality, it can be understood that human beings have tightened up the parameters of sexuality. However, sexual differences do not indicate a lack of character, morality, or mental agility as society likes to think it is. And it is crucial for America, as progressive as we think we are, to change those views, think about the forms, the politics, the inequalities, the oppressions, and any other issues associated with sexuality. The time to break down conservative sexual barriers has come, and Congressman Barney Frank makes the first-advantage move against the unforgiving society and law.

Bibliography

Johnson, Luke. "Barney Frank Marriage: Retiring Congressman Intends to Marry Longtime Partner Jim Ready" The Huffington Post 26 Jan 2012. Web, 26 Jan 2012

Rubin, Gayle. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality" from Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies ed. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider. 1993.

Smith, Barbara. "Homophobia Why Bring it Up?" from The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader ed. Henry Ableove, Michele A Barbale, David M. Halperin. 1993.

The Social (R)Evolution of Gay Marriage: Past and Present

    The foundations of human existence stemmed from the ability for biological evolution and procreation. With this in mind, a correlation can be constructed between the biological and the social, where social evolution and the birth of new ideas have led to the emergence of a visible LGBTQ community. There is much debate about LGBTQ issues ranging from ethics to religious views to heterosexual biases; and at the forefront of today’s ‘Queer Hot 100 List’ is the issue of gay marriage. John D’Emilio and Adrienne Rich discuss such LGBTQ issues and Annie Linskey reports a new headliner that advocates to and for same-sex couples seeking to get married.
     In “O'Malley Seeks Religious Support for Same-sex Marriage Bill,” Annie Linskey discusses the LGBTQ community in Baltimore, Maryland as they are slowly beginning to receive support from their religious counterparts. A revised bill was presented by Governor Martin O’Malley that, if passed, would legalize gay marriage in the state. The bill was revised so that it would ensure “religious protections” and was specifically reworded to “blunt opposition” from religious individuals who worried about being forced to adhere to the law against their personal morals (Linskey 2012). The bill, however, would support these individuals’ religious views above supporting the gay marriage bill when future nuances arise in practice. The significance of this bill is the support that it is starting to receive from religious citizens within the community. Reverend Delman Coates of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church went to the Government House to show his support of the bill, but specified that religious others do not have to “agree with same-sex marriage as a matter of personal religious choice” just because he does (Linskey 2012).
    Although this seems contradictory, it is a significant step in the social evolution of acceptance and equality for the LGBTQ community in the eyes of America’s heterosexist society. As Adrienne Rich argues, heterosexism is brought on by social factors drawn from sexual inequalities. As these inequalities fester between heterosexual couples, they suggest to women that “marriage and sexual orientation towards men are inevitable” and are the norm (Rich 1995). This also suggests that being heterosexual is indeed normal, and not being heterosexual is abnormal. In rewriting the bill, Governor O’Malley is embarking on a journey for social equality that the LGBTQ community has already been trekking. However, because of Reverend Coates’ personal support of the bill, his shift in view is especially significant because religious individuals are hopping on board as well. Through becoming more aware of the social inequality of non-heterosexually identified people, social change is becoming more tangible to the LGBTQ community - albeit slowly, but surely. This is exemplified in Coates’ verbalization of “I think everyone is protected here” when speaking about how the bill incorporates gay marriage while simultaneously acknowledging the church’s beliefs (Finskey 2012).
    Also, at this stage in the social evolution of the LGBTQ community, it is important to reflect on the social changes in America that have led up to this particular current event. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, homosexuality was not even recognized because heterosexuality was “literally the only way of life” (D’Emilio 1983). Moving into the early twentieth century, homosexuality was beginning to be identified and acknowledged, where people were beginning to act on their sexual preferences. However, views on homosexuality were thwarted by “Judeo-Christian tradition” and society began to view same-sex interaction as a “heinous sin” in which the “inferior” homosexuals should be “punished” for their “acquired form of insanity” and “homosexual…pathology” (D’Emilio 1983). Although there are still those today who view homosexuality as a “disease” and wish to continue viewing homosexuals as “criminals,” the evolution into today’s society is apparent.
    Looking back on previous views on same-sex relations, the social change being facilitated by today’s government in Maryland is revolutionizing the way in which people are interacting with religion and sexual minorities of LGBTQ. As Reverend Coates said, he feels like the “legislation would not force his church to do something against its beliefs” and when “wavering delegates” see this, they will hopefully support the bill and further facilitate social acceptance of the LGBTQ community (Finskey 2012).   
    Thus, social evolution has been seen throughout America’s history. This evolution has lead to a revolution in the way that religious individuals view and interact with people in the LGBTQ community, while facilitating further social change and acceptance of non-heterosexual individuals.

Works Cited
D’Emilio, John. "Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview" from Sexual
Politics, Sexual, Communities in the United States 1940- 1970. Chicago, Ill: University
of Chicago Press, 1983.

Rich, Adrienne. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" from Professions
of Desire: Lesbian and Gay Studies in Literature. ed. George Haggerty and Bonnie
Zimmermann. New York: Modern Language Association, 1995.

Linskey, Annie. “O'Malley Seeks Religious Support for Same-sex Marriage Bill.” The Baltimore Sun Jan 2012. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-same-sex-religion-20120124,0,1852313.story>



http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-same-sex-religion-20120124,0,1852313.story

Changes and Resistances: Gay Couple John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell

Changes and Resistances:

Gay Couple John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell
                                                                                        Ruiqi Ye

On January 29, Daniel J. O’Donnell, an openly gay Manhattan Assemblyman, held his 400-plus-guest wedding with John Banta at Guastavino’s in Manhattan. Their wedding represents the progress of same-sex marriage in the continuing gay emancipation in the United States. Elissa Gootman’s New York Times article, “John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell- Vows”, delineates how the romantic relationship between Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta has influenced their careers and social life. Based on their stories, I use Gayle Rubin and John D’Emilio’s theories about sexual hierarchy to exam the changes of social views towards homosexuality and resistances of homosexuals to compulsory heterosexuality.

Back in the 1900s, gay marriage or even homosexuality was unimaginable. According to Rubin (13), the dominant sexual value system depicted any sexual variations other than heterosexual sex as “abnormal” and “unnatural”. This heterosexual supremacy in the American culture stemmed not only from religion, but also “science” as psychology, and was further demonstrated in the legal system. Therefore, homosexual behaviors were labeled as a “heinous sin”, a “serious crime”, and “diseased”. (John D’emilio, 13) These oppressions together have inhibited the construction of a homosexual identity and forced heterosexuality upon humans. Gootman reports that Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta “weren’t pursuing a romance at first at all” and they remained close friends for years before going to the next stage. Apparently, the general sexual value system took root in both Mr. O’Donnell’s and Mr. Banta’s minds. The couple neither identified themselves as gays nor realized that their feelings for each other were romantic love. In fact, they both assumed heterosexuality as the society forced on them. “Mr. O’Donnell said that if the notion of falling for a man occurred to him, he would have sealed off his heart.” (Gootman) Nonetheless, when Mr. O’Donnell did found out the truth, he chose to continue the relationship against the traditional sexual values. On one hand, compulsory heterosexuality in the American society has been so powerful that it nearly breaks up lovers like Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta; on the other hand, the continued romantic relationships between Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta despite the hostile social environment represents their resistances to the sexual hierarchy.

In the early 1900s, the oppressive sexual value system not only renders homosexuals inferior, but also generated a practical problem for them: unemployment. According to Rubin (7), homosexuals were once linked to communism for weakening the American power and excluded from government employment. Rubin (21) also states that in the 1960s, “the vast majority of homosexuals had to choose between honest poverty and the strain of maintaining a false identity.” Although Mr. Banta and Mr. O’Donnell did not start to work until the1980s, they also experienced the fear of coming out and lived more than a decade of secret life. They kept “separate apartments”, and made “pronoun-changing”, in which “we went to the movies” became “I went”. (Gootman) Interestingly, after Mr. Banta and Mr. O’Donnell decided to live together as openly gay men, their careers were not affected much as homosexuals’ careers did. Instead, they worked hard to resist the prejudice against LGBTQs and rose in their careers. Specifically, Mr. O’Donnell opened a new law office in the mid-1990s and was elected to the State Assembly in 2002. (Gootman) Mr. O’Donnell’s success in career as an openly gay politician indicates that homosexuals are not mentally ill, sinful, and illegitimate anymore and they deserve civil service employment. Also, Mr. O’Donnell’s success is a perfect example of resistance against the overwhelming heterosexual supremacy in the political domain.

The campaign for same-sex marriage is another active resistance to compulsory heterosexuality put up by homosexuals. Mr. O’Donnell, as a Manhattan Assemblyman, has been one of the most vocal activists for same-sex marriage. His strategies include giving speeches to the public and even bringing Mr. Banta to his work place to show how much they deserve a marriage license. Finally, upon the triumph of gay marriage, he married Mr. Banta at the age of 51.

Through the story of Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta, we can see how gay couples rise from the bottom of sexual hierarchy in the 1900s to a status of legal married couple in the present time and how previously “abnormal” homosexuality becomes natural. Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta’s success shows an increasing tolerance to homosexuals in the American society in terms of employment and social life. A Large part of these changes results from the efforts of LGBTQ communities, which strive to influence the dichotomy of repression and resistance. 

 

Works Cited

Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies ed. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider. 1993. Print.

D’Emilio, John. “Homosexuality and American Society: An overview.” Sexual Politics, sexual communities in the United States 1940-1970. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1983. Print

Gootman, Elissa. “John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell- Vows” New York Times. New York Times, 3 February 2012. web. 8 February 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/fashion/weddings/john-banta-and-daniel-odonnell-vows.html?_r=1&ref=weddings

A Criminal Vs. A Homosexual

Dominique Diaz

While promoting his 2012 Presidential Campaign in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum tells an audience that he believes an imprisoned, abandoning father would still be better fit for a child than not having a father at all, this referring to his opposition of gay marriage.  This shocking statement hit news coverage immediately, but what was equally shocking were the vacuous and emotional arguments behind his reasoning.  
His first argument was that, “Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason...we want to encourage what is best for the children” (Memoli and Barabak).  Statements like these are spreading oppressive beliefs and behaviors to others by saying that homosexuality is wrong, different, and undeserving of the “privilege” to marry because it does not meet the requirements of tradition and normalcy that our society is used to.  However, in Eli Clare’s article “Stolen Bodies: Reclaimed Bodies,” he tries to counter this mentality by presenting the idea of being “irrevocably different” (Clare 362).  This changes the connotation of “queer” from “different therefore wrong and undeserving,” to “unchangeably different therefore deserving of equal rights.”  Unfortunately, declarations like the one Santorum is spreading promote homophobic thoughts instead of ones like Clare’s that promote acceptance to gay marriage and the gay community.  If more thoughts like Clare’s were publicized, perhaps we would be able to enlighten people who take a blind eye to what homosexuality actually is and why taking away these human rights is unconstitutional.  
Santorum furthers his argument by saying, “Allowing gays to marry and raise children amounts to robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true” (Memoli and Barabak).  With this statement, Santorum is not giving any reason or logical argument to back up his words, he is merely appealing to people by reminding them of what society wrongly teaches us about gender roles.  These gender roles or gender norms that society has created for us, explain that a child needs a mother and a father who behave according to their gender.  First of all, in his article, Gayle Rubin argues that the concept of “sex/gender system” is not something set in stone, but “a set of arrangements by which society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity” (Rubin 16).  Therefore, it is unfair to deny someone rights for not fitting their gender role because it is an idea created by people, not a rule or law.  Secondly, having an absent father still does not fulfill the gender role theory of it being “necessary” to have both a mother and a father because there is no father to teach the child anything about how a man is suppose to behave. Meanwhile, teaching children that criminals, whose actions put them in jail, are better than homosexuals, who commit the crime of loving another human being.  Lastly, not only is Santorum’s statement an insult to single parents, but he is implying that two straight parents are the only way to have a fully functioning family and the only way to create honorable members of society in children.  However, Zach Wahls, A 19-year old college student who addresses the Iowa House of Representatives regarding his life being raised by two mothers, successfully counters Rick Santorum’s beliefs all on one 3 minute video by explaining his accomplishments and ending with telling the judge that he believes the judge would be proud of him if he were his son (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ).  
By listening to arguments like Rick Santorum’s, our society is taking a step back in how far we have come in LGBTQ acceptance, trusting empty arguments with no validity, and being influenced to take away human rights based off of the uncomfortableness of the topic.  Instead, we should think logically when being presented with these kinds of viewpoints, and listen to and promote positive views on gay rights. 

Bibliography

Clare, Eli. “Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies: Disability and Queerness.” Public Culture  (2001): 359-365. Web.

Memoli, Michael A., and Mark Z. Barabak. "Santorum Dwells on Gay Marriage." The Los Angeles Times. 07 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ jan/07/nation/la-na-campaign-20120107>.

Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies (1993): 1-22. Print.

Wahls, Zach. “Zach Wahls Speaks About Family.” Speech. 3 Feb. 2011. YouTube. 7 Jan. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ>

The Golden Globes: Witchhunt or Award Ceremony?

Kelsey Kulbarsh

The Golden Globes: Witchhunt or Award Ceremony?

Historically, homosexual behavior has been seen as deviant.  Luckily, as society progresses into the future, this number of those who hold this opinion is decreasing as homosexuality is becoming more accepted.  In “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”, Gayle Rubin reminds us of the important point that, according to “popular ideology”, families are supposed to exile members whom do not conform to heterosexual conduct.  This ideology is brought to question as a well-liked TV series called “Modern Family” was recently given the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical.  This popular show includes a series of households within one family, one of which is a gay couple raising a child.  The show highlights everyday struggles and the capability of family strength and union.  This family portrayal rejects the notion that their non-heterosexual family should be excluded; instead maintains family ties with love, acceptance, and humor.   As well-deserved awards were given such as this, outside was an anti-gay protest.  With signs held high of their distaste for homosexual relations on broadcasted television, several members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the entrance of this prestigious, annual event.  These select few citizens disapproved a show that 14.3 million other viewers enjoy and watch regularly.  Of course there are people outside this church group that find the show offensive, however, according to Gayle Rubin and Barbara Smith, it is these negative and oppressive views that must be changed. 

Rubin explains that in the 1950’s homosexuals were “the object of federal witchhunt” and there were countless “crackdown against gay individuals” (Rubin 1993, 5-6).  The Westboro Church’s decision to seek out and verbalize their disgust for homosexuality is, in some sense, a form of this hunt.  Religious opinions are explained by Rubin in that gay relations, including marriage, are seen as an inappropriate union that couldn’t provide proper kin, thus making it taboo.  This idea of the inability of gay couples to properly raise children is directly challenged in the show Modern Family as the gay couple adopts and parents a child, living a happy and wholesome lifestyle.

It should also be recognized that the award for Best Supporting Actor went to the character of a gay man coming out.  Christopher Plummer, the recipient of this award, responded to the anti-gay protest in saying that, “Gay characters are human beings. We are all exactly the same….part of our society.  Since the Egyptians, The Greeks; it is part of the human condition.” This idea that homosexuality has been a part of society for centuries creates the need for historical research and analysis in this area.  Rubin described that further social analysis and historical understanding is needed to better educate and evolve opinions of sexuality.  Those who chose to voice their opinions on homosexuality at the Golden Globes had it within their civil rights to do so.  Their opinions that homosexuality is wrong only added to the previous notions of oppression; that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals.  Barbara Smith argued in “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?” that “one way to protect one’s heterosexual credentials and privilege is to put down lesbians and gay men” and that is exactly what the Westboro Church sought to do (Smith 1993, 100-101).  Their signs were covered with derogatory names such “Faggots”, a term used along with “that’s gay” to describe something inferior.  Smith brings up the point that these expressions are still acceptable in society whereas other derogatory terms are prohibited.  It might be in their civil rights, but these signs project negative attitudes that burden and take away from the civil rights of those they were directed toward. 

Attitudes toward homosexuality are becoming more accepting, and this is reflected as awards are given to TV shows and movies with homosexual characters and their viewers increase.  There will always be those who reject homosexuality, however, I agree with Smith that “these attitudes must be challenges if pervasive taken-for-granted homophobia is ever to cease” (Smith 1993, 100-101).       

Bibliography

Rubin, Gayle. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality." Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider. Print

Smith, Barbara. "Homophobia: Why Bring It Up?" The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York and London: Henry Ablelove, 1993. Print.

Taylor, Kate. "Golden Globes Glitter, Tarnished Only by Anti-gay Protests." The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley, 16 Jan. 2012. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/awards/golden-globes/golden-globes-glitter-tarnished-only-by-anti-gay-protests/article2304470/>.