For Mere Images this week, we’ve decided to go glog (for the uninitiated, a glog is a weblog relying primarily on visuals rather than text). We’ll be showing you some of the most talked about, controversial or captivating stories about LGBT folk we’ve seen.

A fundraising calendar in Spain causes a great stir in the Catholic country when the LGBT group COGAM decides to have 12 months depicting virgenes with transgender models.

Chicago saw people taking to the streets for the 11th Annual Matthew Shepard March, led by the LGBT Liberation Network. ABC-7 covered the event; NBC-5 and CAN-TV may also run stories in the future.

New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens ‘It’s Gay To Smoke’

And The Onion continues to be hilarious.

The tomboy dyke in gym class. The faggot in home ec. The he-she beside you in Spanish. Bullying is a natural occurrence in school; after all, mandating that a large number of personality types spend a third of their day together in a controlled–often disciplinarian–space will definitely lead to friction.  Tension is rising already a month into the 2009-2010 school year, and for many students, a fear of bullying is increasing. We expect to be bullied, from representations of middle and high school in media, many times as the result of an arbitrary personality clash. But recently, anti-LGBT bullying has become a rising trend. The tragic consequences of this type of bullying ended the lives of 11-year-olds Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover and Jaheem Herrera as well as three students in Illinois. It was also a major factor in the highly publicized murder of Lawrence King in his classroom two Valentine’s Day’s ago. These were not simply cases of unbalanced students not being able to deal; these were cases that highlighted how acceptable it still is for anti-LGBT harassment to occur without repercussion.

A main factor is the refusal to acknowledge the problem for what it is: a systematic and targeted scapegoating of LGBT people by factions and zealots that makes the topic of sexuality, especially in regard to identity, a taboo in society. This taboo is understandably troubling and confusing for children whose minds and questions are developing, but who are given no direction on how to respond to behavior outside of the expected. They take their cues from others, and it is scary to realize that for many students, those cues are to abuse and degrade non-heteronormative children. The boys who killed themselves were too young to know if they were gay or not; all they knew is they did not want to be people who were constantly ridiculed.

The beliefs that feed the bullying are not held by a small group of people who are righteously justified by their intolerance of homosexual and transgender people; they are promulgated by mass media, given a framing that makes an easy, if obscure, case for rejecting LGBT issues. The best example comes from a recent Fox News interview with Tucker Carlson:

For many gay-rights supporters, it is easy to shrug off Fox News’ rhetoric as off-base and without merit. But Fox News consistently outperforms other cable news channels by roughly twice the amount of viewers every night. MediaBistro details how the audience share Fox enjoys is larger than CNN and MSNBC combined. Millions of people are taking the word “news” as a factual analysis, and thereby using it to legitimize their disgust of the LGBT community. Children only know to be afraid of showing signs that could cast them as one of those outsiders, and so they reject it in a more direct way that is natural to them, by bullying others.

Some ways to prevent this are fortunately being implemented in many progressive school systems. Chicago’s own public schools have recently expanded their anti-discrimination policies to include sexual orientation and gender expression. The key to this reform is an advisory council of students; by respecting the intelligence and autonomy of teenagers and young children, CPS has shown that it is possible to promote tolerance. National Coming Out Day is coming up on October 11, and the surrounding days are a perfect time for allies to show their support and for LGBT students to make themselves heard. Curricula that explore LGBT issues and problems in ways that engage students rather than keep them sheltered and afraid are important to creating a rich school environment, and the better the environment, the less students will feel a need to lash out. The more their intelligence is respected, the less reason they’ll have to fall back on prejudiced rhetoric to justify their behavior. And the more we fight for the integrity of free discourse in schools, the less likely we are to lose children due to shame and fear.

by Kevin Sparrow

The increasing vocality from “traditional marriage” defenders the National Organization for Marriage, they of the gathering storm and awkwardly confused children ads, from Maine to Iowa has been monitored closely by same-sex marriage proponents, so it seems appropriate to take account of what this group is actually saying. They have even helped out by providing a list of talking points to their adherents, which you can read by following the link (up to your discretion).

The first statement they purport is that their view of marriage as a union between man and woman is “just common sense.” Common means something we all share, and when the country is split fairly evenly on the issue of gay marriage, there is no way that the current status of marriage is common sense.

The deplorable and contradictory rhetoric of these talking points continues directly from there with what they deem the “single  most effective message”: “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” First, this pulls the argument back to homosexuality being a choice, and second, recognizing marriage as a right for all people is not redefining it. Amendments to the Constitution do not alter the fundamental beliefs on which it was founded; they just broaden its power. The same would be true of civil marriage if recognized as belonging to everyone and highlights that we in the LGBT community do not have the right to live as we choose when many rights are denied us, including federal marriage.

The most inconsistent part of these talking points come in the FAQ section. After urging their members to “shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage” and “n[o]t get sidetracked” by peripheral issues such as gay rights, discrimination or benefits (the primary concerns brought about by this argument and the reason it exists), NOM spends much of its time discussing the role of having both a mother and a father in parenting–a completely separate issue from marriage–and even discusses adoption when discussing couples who may not be able to conceive. “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this.” Adoption, in most states, can be achieved in or out of wedlock and even by single people. If their goal is to talk solely about their (limited) view of marriage, they are doing a very poor job of putting that message across.

They also try to make this argument from that framework: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.” We get that common sense thread again; as common sense as equating bigotry as solely against racial minorities. No, NOM, you are not like racists, but you are bigots.

In a September 24, 2007 speech to Columbia University, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals.” Nearly two years later, Ahmadinejad was declared President for another term after a democratic election, but following this announcement, challenging candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urged his supporters to peacefully protest a seemingly rigged election. For over a week, thousands of Iranian citizens have protested the election results, but there has been very little peace involved. Iran’s police force and militia groups the Revolutionary Guard and Basij have used violence to quell the voices of those who oppose Ahmadinejad, leading to 17 deaths and many more injuries resulting from gunfire, baton beatings and tear gas.

If anything, this suppression signifies a regime that will take any action to stay in power and enforce unfair treatment of its female and queer citizens while putting on a facade of democracy to keep citizens from rebelling. Even worse, other nations who support these protesters have been criticized for influencing the outcry and supposedly worsening the situation. This is simply a tactic of intimidation because we know that we cannot turn a blind eye to this problem and hope it is settled solely by the Iranian government. In a country that maintains laws punishing consensual homosexual acts between adults with death, we need to work to settle this dispute to have any success of rectifying the deplorable state in which LGBT individuals are made to live.

In London last Thursday, a protest of 700 people at the Iranian Embassy welcomed LGBT supporters who showed solidarity with the current unrest in Iran. We need to continue to show our presence in helping the people of Iran, whether through social networks, blogs and news articles or by organizing protests and calling on our government to speak out about this very important moment. We also must remain vigilant; supporting justice for an entire country of people is necessary and especially pertinent in this context, but supporting justice for a minority community will remain a secondary issue unless we continue to speak out against discrimination and violence against the LGBT community worldwide. Show solidarity now and demand solidarity always.

We’ve all experienced this moment: Whether sharing a kiss in public, using a public bathroom for our actual gender or simply walking down the street with our partners, we freeze up. We expect a reaction to our obvious displays of queerness, forcing us to consider and even feel embarrassed about a part of ourselves many of us thought we had reconciled long ago. The history of hatred toward the LGBT community still lives inside us, and if it continues to permeate our cultural discourse, we will keep experiencing these moments of fear.

News media seems primarily focused on hate experienced by LGBT individuals and our response. When a crime happens, our first thought is that it is because of our identity. The Long Island GLBT Community Center in New York experienced this reaction earlier in the month when they opened their office one morning only to find it vandalized. Police began investigating the vandalism as a hate crime, but they quickly found suspects who muddied the waters. Four young adults who had formerly been members of the center and identify as gay admitted to committing the crime. Current members were still reeling and thrown into a spiral of fear based on their perception.

This perception of overwhelming hatred leads to a less vocal, and thus less visible, LGBT community. The hatred spurred by Nigeria’s government is a clear example that monopolizing on fear is leading to harmful legislation. Earlier in February, Foreign Affairs Minister for Nigeria Ojo Madueke claimed before the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, “We went out of our way to look for [a] Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Group but we could not come across [any] Nigerian with such sexuality. If they are an amorphous group, then the question of violence against them does not arise let alone negotiating special rights for them.” This comes after a proposed criminalization of same-sex marriage by the country in January, which already states in law that male-male sex is punishable by jail time. By keeping the issue of homosexuality subdued, Nigeria’s government has given itself a license to pass their hateful legislation because the people it affects are not considered part of their population.

A gray-area persists: is physical violence equal to verbal assault? The United Kingdom recently opened up this issue by denying a visa seeking medical help to Yusuf al Qaradawi, a Muslim scholar who is claimed to preach anti-LGBT sentiment. On the other hand, individuals who have aided in mass slaughter, such as Narenda Modi, or openly promoted hate against other religious groups, like Evangelical preacher Franklin Graham, have been openly welcomed in the country. The treatment of the case seems hypocritical, and LGBT voices in the UK have asked that Qaradawi, who they disagree with on principle, be allowed to seek medical treatment in the country. By outright denying a discussion of hatred, the fear that stems from it will remain internalized.

The images we see every day remind us of the dichotomy of gay life: a freedom from the constraints of dominant society and anxiety at being on the outside. Even with the progress made in the last few decades, there are many places where openness is not allowed. A pervasive silence sets in, forcing us as LGBT people to remain in fear, dreading when simply living our lives will lead to attacks. We need to remember that if no one is taking the first step to break the silence, then we have to. It is the only way to break out of the cycle of hate.

Job security for anti-gay activists under fire
by Kevin Sparrow

People riding each other’s shoulders, traffic blocked as rainbow flags pass over rooftops, and the echo of “Equal Rights Now” have been playing through my head for the last few weeks. The passing of Proposition 8 could have been a tremendous blow to gay rights activist, but instead, it increased fervor and brought us directly into the spotlight. It is a very thrilling time, and undoubtedly emotionally charged, but with the momentum built, there has little time to contemplate consequences.

Those who supported Proposition 8 through money and rhetoric are not people with whom we want to associate. The proliferation of lists with the names of donors to both sides of the campaign, boycotting of Cinemark Theaters due to donations made by CEO Alan Stock, and a possible picketing of Sundance have made a clear statement where our money will not be going. However, this has also led to an atmosphere where we castigate individuals and hold each responsible for more harm than he or she has caused. A story that appeared in the November 27 edition of U.K. paper The Independent, although egregiously biased for a hard news story, hits upon the way outside media are viewing this: “‘Hollywood witch hunt’ claims film boss.” It appears that targeted attacks are ousting from their jobs those who contributed to Prop 8.

The San Francisco Chronicle of November 28 revealed that “Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, who has been at the center of controversy since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California, resigned from his post…” due to phone and e-mail complaints by those who supported the “No on 8” campaign. Raddon apologized for the harm he committed, but his values as a Mormon prompted him to make a contribution. This followed the resignation of California Musical Theatre director Scott Eckern for his support of “Yes on 8.”

However, precedents of intolerance masquerading as activism existed even before ballots were cast. Crystal Dixon, the human resources vice president for the University of Toledo, was fired from her position for a letter to the editor of the Toledo Free Press she wrote as a private citizen opposing using civil rights language for the gay rights movement. “‘I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims. Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.’” While many may disagree with this position’s logical fallacies, it is her right to present it in a forum for opinion without fear of losing her job. Even the ACLU supports this, stating, “It would seem perfectly fair and logical for the university to say if this is what you believe, we have to look at your job performance…look at [a person’s] actions, not their words.” Now, Dixon is suing the University of Toledo, which will create great controversy for the future.

We want a redress for the pain that the defeats in California, Arizona and Florida have caused us; we want people to understand our pain. But giving them a separate but equal amount of pain in their working lives deflects the issue and takes the impetus off what we in the LGBT community still need to accomplish. Even without the contributions made by these people, the ballot would still have succeeded because we as a community were not galvanized enough before its passage. The California Secretary of State’s office even put out numbers showing that the No on 8 campaign was better funded than Yes on 8 with $37.6 million to $35.8 million, a margin of $1.8 million. We need to teach people why these equal rights are so important, not punish them and hope they go away. We need to make allies, not enemies. We need to get one more person standing on the sidewalk during a protest march to smile and wave

by Kevin Sparrow

Editor’s Note: Before we tackle this week’s Mere Images, I think it would be a disservice not to acknowledge the elections that took place Tuesday night. While it was a proud day for Barack Obama and his supporters, for many around the country, a chill has settled in. Those who fought for change in the form of marriage equality in California, Arizona and Florida hit a wall when support for propositions defining marriage as between one man and one woman passed by slim margins. This fight has seen bright points—the decisions in California and Connecticut to begin honoring gay marriages—but these three steps backward only highlight a troubling theme. Many Americans are reaching out for hope, but some have just had our hands smacked away. An encouraging candidate alone will not suffice. As queer members of society, we are the only reliable source for momentum to rectify injustices done against us. We have to be willing to keep fighting for marriage rights without discouragement from these decisions. We have to go beyond asking or hoping these rights will be granted; these rights should unequivocally be granted to anyone regardless or orientation. The American framework has not yet seen this beyond a civil rights issue; it is a human rights issue. It is a deeply saddening occasion when a piece of legislature rends away a right everyone should have from birth, regardless of whom he or she loves later in life.

The internet is flooded with blogs about food, about gossip, even about cats with speech impediments. Political blogs are no exception to this trend, but Poplicks, written by Junichi Semitsu and Oliver Wang, stands out for its self-assured humor, relevance and insight. And for LGBT readers, the blog’s immeasurable support for marriage equality has opened up an avenue for discourse on the subject. Straight allies are a major component of ensuring marriage equality, and Poplicks’ November 5 post “On the Appalling Passage of Proposition 8” encourages this notion. Semitsu clarifies, “there is no viable legal argument that Prop. 8 conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or any federal law. Sadly, not one federal court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to require marriage equality for gays and lesbians.” An informed voice helps reveal those allies whose concerns over these propositions are equal to those of our own.

Wang delivers this sobering statistic: “the single-most community that came out for Prop 8 were African Americans – at 70%! – and the Latino community was also largely in favor of it too (~55-57%).” Any divisiveness shown by these numbers should not be used to generate a schism between ethnic communities and our own. Obviously, many LGBT individuals come from an ethnic minority background and have had a large role in the movement for our rights. Even recently, a healthy gathering of those against Proposition 8 was led by African-American preachers in California to counteract rallies by Yes on 8 proponents. As we fight, we need to be vigilant about creating allies rather than enemies. Semitsu provides encouragement by stating, “I remain optimistic… that we will eventually see full equality again in California. This will require a new smartly-worded initiative, a better-organized movement, more money, and only an incremental shift in public opinion.” The more support we as Americans offer between our various minority groups, the more real progress can be made toward breathing life into a declaration written so long ago but still waiting to be fully realized.

by Kevin Sparrow

LGBT History Month is one of the more recent celebrations of civil rights granted to American citizens. But a historical discrepancy has always stood between LGBT identity and black identity. The story “Months to Mark the Years” from the October 2nd edition of MetroWeekly, Washington D.C.’s LGBT newspaper, describes a phenomenon of a black voice that is stifled in discussion of LGBT rights. Writer Kevin Mumford describes how “[Black gay journalist Robert Grier] disparaged books that ‘communicate to the black straight community that black gays are not/no longer contributors and resultantly expendable.’” The role black members have played in the LGBT community’s struggle for rights has been consistently inspiring… and consistently neglected. The article mentions how no one addressed writer James Baldwin’s homosexuality at his 1987 funeral, even though he was surprisingly outspoken on the topic in an era that did not see enough openness.

Even had the mention been made, though, Baldwin’s plights would not have been rectified. As a black man, one of his most influential novels, Giovanni’s Room, concerns a white American man’s exploits in Paris with another man. In order to break through to the mainstream, Baldwin had to choose a compromise: drop blackness or drop queerness. In modern society, both should be able to coexist. They often still do not.

Unfortunately, a disturbing trend has been to blame African-American citizens for homophobia. The Los Angeles Times reports, “The Yes on 8 campaign is counting on them, arguing that some polls suggest African Americans are generally less open to same-sex unions than other groups. ‘They are our strongest supporters,” said Frank Schubert, who is managing the Yes on 8 campaign.’” A division of two groups who have historically fought for civil rights would be a great blow to the LGBT community, but it seems disingenuous to say that African-Americans are substantially more opposed to LGBT rights. Beyond this, the article mentions “[African-American Californians] are expected to vote in record numbers this election because of Barack Obama’s presence on the ballot,” disregarding that the black vote may actually be aimed directly at Proposition 8 or is separate from the racial politics of current campaigning. There is no reason to be naïve that race does not exist in our current political discourse, or that focusing on race will go away any time soon. However, racist attitudes that proliferate under the guise of honest sociology have no place in journalism. Black attitudes on LGBT issues may or may not be as skewed as the media make them appear, but it is clear that racism is still pervasive and a serious impediment to furthering civil rights for all people.

Christianity’s role in the LGBT community
By Kevin Sparrow

For many LGBT citizens, religion plays a complicated role in the development of sexual orientation. Depending on the type of religious institution one has grown up in, acceptance and reproach can come in equal measure. In unlucky circumstances, the results of constant disapproval can lead to either a split from the faith or a split from one’s identity. For LGBT individuals who desire a link between the religion they have always known and a chance to explore their sexuality, there seems little hope. However, a recent story from The New York Times offers some insight into these struggles. “Church Gives Sanctuary to Gay Man and His Family” tells the story of Randy Keel, a gay man who found support from his former wife, Jill, and their children, but who had difficulty finding it in the Baptist church.

The Baptist religion had been as much of Keel’s identity as his sexual orientation; he and Jill even “had helped found a congregation in a Raleigh [N.C.] suburb.” However, the national church has a long-standing tradition of condemning homosexuality, and the Keels felt it was important to keep their family together in faith. That’s when they came across Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in their home state of North Carolina. Pullen is known for having regular union ceremonies for homosexual couples, a rarity for most Christian denominations, let alone Baptist churches.

However, one aspect the article fails to clarify early is differentiating between denominations of Christianity. Historically LGBT-friendly churches have been found in diverse groups, such as Methodists, Episcopalians, Protestants and Catholics. These churches have been great allies in LGBT support with their built-in sense of community.

The Times article states, “What church anywhere nearby would possibly accept a gay man and his family?” before expressing that they are of the Baptist faith. This is a rhetorical misstep; the focus is on the conservative Baptist church, but without careful reading, the article can seem to be extrapolating the disapproval of the Baptist church to all Christianity. An important note to make in discussions of religion is that it is not solely the requisite of the church in question to accept LGBT individuals. Members of the LGBT community must avoid condemnation of religion if both are to have a dialogue. Reaching out for understanding makes a bolder statement than turning one’s back in light of disagreements.

by Kevin Sparrow

Early September saw its share of egalitarian stories concerning transgender rights in the work place. In addition to the international wealth of stories about transgender professor Joy Ladin’s controversial return to Jewish institute Yeshiva University, a story entitled “Smoother Transitions” from the September 3rd edition of the New York Times profiled transgender workers throughout America. A comforting fact provided by this article is that “Currently, 125 of the Fortune 500 companies include ‘gender identity’ in their nondiscrimination policies…” While this translates 25% of those companies, it is a major step from where the country was only five years ago.

William E. Tate, the vice president for human resources for General Motors is quoted as saying, “‘New hires, prospective employees, new graduates in particular, they are all very interested in a company’s inclusive policies.’” A trend reinforcing this statement is that as more progressive-minded people move into positions of authority within large companies, they influence policy to turn in a direction of inclusiveness, particularly toward guaranteeing rights for the much-underrepresented transgender contingent. However, the reporting of the trend has been oddly one-sided: from the four transgender workers profiled in the New York Times story, all were male-to-female. This may be due to some degree of the United States’ disparity toward females in general, but transgender issues inform working conditions considerably, clouding exact reasons for this type of reportage.

The most prominent story about Joy Ladin, “Ye-She-Va” from the New York Post of September 8th, is filled with considerable ambiguities. The story pits faculty against former students just by quotations utilized. Rabbi Moshe Tendler says, “‘He’s a person who represents a kind of amorality which runs counter to everything Yeshiva University stands for.’” And while this statement is close to reflecting what gender reassignment should be—a non-moral issue—it is only countered by former students who took Ladin’s class before she left. Shayndi Raice Sigall, who took Ladin’s class in 2004, stated, “‘There are transgender people all over the world, and this is a wonderful opportunity for the school to show students firsthand how you can respect and learn from someone who might be different from you.’” For a story that chooses to focus on change, it is curious the New York Post chose to avoid statements from current Yeshiva University students.

A major skew in this reportage is also present: both of these stories—the most major of the ones presented in the last month—are from papers in New York, even though transgender rights issues occur everywhere (Breanna Speed, profiled in “Smoother Transitions,” works in Illinois). The breadth of the United States should be profiled for their gender inclusiveness, but recently, only one city has managed to prioritize this matter for major publication. The best route may be just to remain determined on the final goal, one of true equality between all members of the workforce: asserting who you are despite public dissent. As Mary Ann Horton states in “Smoother Transitions,” “I am a woman. I know my voice is deep, but I am a woman.”