Perpetuating the Gay Stereotype

I caught an episode of Oprah last Friday March 6, 2009. It was one of her View style formatted shows, where Oprah sits around a table with a panel to discuss current topics (nothing is original anymore, not even from Oprah). Her usual panel includes Oprah (of course), Ali Wentworth (George Stephanopoulos's wife), Mark Consuelos (cute as a bug, but I'm not sure why he is there), and Gayle King (Oprah's ever annoying BFF). I'm not a religious viewer, but I do tend to like Oprah and her show.

I must say that after watching that program, I have been bothered ever since. My gripe isn't with Oprah as much as it is with the annoying BFF, Gayle. During the segment, in which Oprah introduced her new puppy to America, Gayle made a seemingly innocent comment about her own dog being gay. I believe it was Oprah who asked, "how do you know your dog is gay?" And to that Gayle answered, "he is girly." Oprah then responded something to the effect of, "only in the nicest way". What is so nice about a stereotypical caricature of being gay? A passing comment, of that nature, between friends is really not a big deal, at least to me; however, when one is broadcasting her opinion across the world to millions and millions of viewers, one has a certain responsibility.

Some might think that I'm being a little too sensitive on this topic, and if the truth be known I mulled this over and over in my head all weekend long but I kept coming back to one truth: Of all people, Gayle King, as a black woman, should be more attuned to the sensitivities of stereotyping. Many of us have heard stereotypes of African Americans, Jewish people, Polish, blonds, and of course gay men and women, just to name a few. Everyone knows the damage that these generalizations can create. Certainly Gayle King knows what damage a stereotype can inflict on someone. If it had been a passing comment from anyone else that day regarding a black stereotype, Oprah's show would have come to a screeching halt for Oprah to address it.

Since her show did not come to a screeching halt that day, then I'll address it. Here's the danger with the comment made by Gayle, first of all the stereotype is off base. For as many different homosexuals there are in the world, there are as many different types of people. We come in all different packages; and yes, some of us are "girly" but for as many that are effeminate, there are equally as many that are more masculine than many of the straight men that I know. We are athletes, doctors, lawyers, dentists, gardeners, garbage collectors, contractors, pilots, and U.S. military officers as well as florists, hair stylists and fashion designers. We are black, white, Christian, Jewish, old, young, rich, poor, strong, weak, able bodied and disabled. We are your brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends.

Keep in mind, young gay boys and girls are picked on and beaten and sometimes killed everyday, just for being gay or for being perceived as being gay or simply for being slightly "girly".

I understand Gayle was talking about her dog; and in the animal kingdom homosexuality does exist. When animals such as penguins and dogs nest together and have sex with the same gender then that might be a clue; however, being "girly" doesn't equate with being gay, not for animals or for humans. As long as stereotypes are perpetuated, the struggle for human equality and the struggle to keep our effeminate friends from physical harm will endure.

Wake up Gayle and Oprah. Own up to your responsibility. Live, think and speak consciously, in the style of Oprah's usual mantra.

Finally, Embryonic Stem Cell Restrictions Lifted

We have suffered enough, literally, over the last eight years through the Bush administration's policy on embryonic stem cell research. Finally on Monday our new, more progressive President, Barack Obama, will lift the restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cell research in federally funded experiments. After wasting time for so many years on potentially critical scientific breakthroughs, our country can get to work on searching for cures to thousands of devastating illnesses including cancer, Parkinson's and Muscular Dystrophy. This new policy is to the chagrin of many conservative critics; and to them I say, too bad!

In 2001, President George W. Bush barred federal funding for research on nearly all embryonic stem cells, significantly restricting the progress of potential medical advancement. Many conservative supporters of President Bush's policy praised his decision in the name of protecting unborn human embryos. Their justification was completely misguided. The embryos, in question, are derived from fertility clinics which would have destroyed the embryos anyway when they were no longer needed for their purposes. It is also a contradiction to claim protection of an unborn embryo knowing that many living, breathing people suffer and die every day with no promise of a cure to their disease.

In a 2005 CBS news poll, the majority of Americans, 58%, approved of medical research using embryonic stem cells. During his campaign for Presidency, Barack Obama pledged to lift the restrictions of using embryonic stem cells in medical research. In November 2008, our country overwhelmingly voted President Obama into office knowing where he stands on this issue as well as many others. Now on Monday, President Obama will make good on his promise and finally lift the restrictions obstructing advancement in medical science.

Although there is no guarantee of a single cure, the doors are swinging wide open to the possibility. This change in policy gives hope to many people suffering from chronic, debilitating and deadly diseases. To President Obama's socially conservative critics that are complaining about the "moral" consequences, I say now it's our turn to have policy work for us. Social conservatives are in the minority on this topic and they will have to sit by and wait it out just like we did for eight years while science stayed behind in the dark ages. Unfortunately, many people that suffer from incurable diseases will not survive to see a cure for their illnesses because of the delay in this important scientific work. Now think of the hope this new policy will give to those of us who live, breathe and struggle everyday waiting for relief. The ball is now in the hands of the scientists. Thankfully, it's a new day for us.

Regent Media Audio Interview

Charlotte Robinson, at OUTTAKE VOICES™, recently interviewed Stephen Macias, the Executive Vice President & General Manager at Regent Media. Regent Media is the parent company of many well known name brands in the LGBT media market such as: The Advocate, Out, and here! TV.

In her NPR style interviews, Charlotte highlights important figures in the LGBT community. In her latest audio interview, she speaks with Mr. Macias about a variety of timely topics from President Obama to Sean Penn's Oscar acceptance speech, for his role in Milk.

Link to the interview here by clicking on OUTTAKE VOICES™, Regent Media interview and listen to Mr. Macias' enthusiastic, yet humble take on current LGBT issues.

California's Proposition 8: A 21st Century Sham

The legal challenges to California's Proposition 8 have finally made their way to the state's Supreme Court. This week California's chief justices will hear arguments for and against overturning the voter approved anti-gay marriage change to that state's constitution. The California Supreme Court will then have 90 days to make its ruling. Will the Court once again allow same-sex couples to marry? Will 18,000 same-sex marriages become invalidated? Will same-sex marriage become the first legally sanctioned financial sham in the 21st Century, where California collected money for something it will not deliver on?

Earlier last year, California's highest court had ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. After that ruling 18,000 gay couples paid marriage license fees, planned their weddings, spent a lot of money on the usual items and exercised their new right to exchange nuptials in California. My partner, Bill, and I were among those that were lucky enough to wed before the November 4th election overturned that newly won legal right.

I don't think anyone has denied that those 18,000 same-sex marriages generated a lot of revenue, not only for the state of California but also for many businesses across the United States. If Proposition 8 had never passed, that revenue would have only just been the beginning. It has been estimated that California could have generated more than $63.8 million dollars in revenue, over the next three years, just on same-sex marriages alone. Proposition 8 put a screeching halt to that potential revenue.

Now California's Supreme Court has the power to either uphold Proposition 8 or overturn it. With that decision will also come another ruling to either invalidate those 18,000 marriages or allow them to remain valid. Of course their decision will have nothing to do with economics, but their decision could present California with an awkward dilemma. Should the state return the fees it previously collected for marriage licenses and ceremonies if those 18,000 marriages are deemed invalid? I, for one, would demand a refund.

My partner and I paid $67 for our marriage license and another $94 for our marriage ceremony performed by the court in San Francisco. We spent a total of $161 on just these fees alone. This, of course, does not include the thousands of dollars we spent in California on hotel, tourism, and restaurants. We also spent additional money on clothing and air fare and thousands more on a wedding reception back in New York. After all was said and done, we racked up a bill of just under $20,000. This price tag does not include the thousands and thousands of dollars in expenses that our guests spent on their trips to New York to attend our wedding reception. As one can imagine, the total revenue spent on just our wedding alone was significant. Now multiply that figure by 18,000 couples and their guests. I would say that the state of California, as well as local and national businesses, benefited greatly from what could ultimately become another financial sham in the 21st century.

At the very least, each of the 18,000 couples spent $67 on marriage license fees. When this figure is multiplied out, it totals $1.2 million dollars collected by the state of California. If the ceremony fees are calculated in, it could add as much as another $1.7 million dollars for a total of $2.9 million dollars. Is California willing to refund these fees for legally sanctioned weddings that could ultimately be voided out? My guess is, no. I am also certain that the businesses that benefited from these weddings won't refund our money either. If these 18,000 same-sex marriages are ultimately deemed invalid, they will be declared to have never existed. So I suppose it would all have been just a dream. Try telling that to our bank account.

If you are one of the 18,000 couples that married in California last year, pay close attention to the decisions that will be handed down from that high court in the next few months. If the 18,000 marriages are declared invalid, I urge you to petition the State of California for a total and complete refund.