IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT GLBT FILMS
Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys

By Dan Savage / New York Times

Published: February 10, 2006 / Seattle

FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "End of the Spear," both of which I'm going to discuss here.

But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for "Brokeback Mountain" were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.)

So, let's get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in "End of the Spear."

"End of the Spear" tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries' families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the "martyrdom" of the slain missionaries has "inspired thousands if not millions of Christians." But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message.

The pastors claim they're worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.) They needn't be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren't Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight — not when Paris Hilton's sex tapes are still out there.

Frankly, I can't help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn't playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do?

That's precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in "Brokeback Mountain" — at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together.

That world didn't exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now — even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman.

Straight audiences are watching and loving "Brokeback Mountain" — that's troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become "ex-gay." It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I've never met a gay man who was moved to join it.

This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood.

What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable.

Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?

Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.

If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.

Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly.

HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES CAN LEARN FROM GAYS & LESBIANS
From Leonard Holmes, Ph.D.

Research suggests that married heterosexual couples can learn a great deal from gay and lesbian couples. Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley have published what is said to be the first published observational studies of homosexual relationships.

John Gottman, one of the lead authors is quoted as saying that "Gay and lesbian couples are a lot more mature, more considerate in trying to improve a relationship and have a greater awareness of equality in a relationship than straight couples. I think that in 200 years heterosexual relationships will be where gay and lesbian relationships are today."

In the first of two papers, the researchers explored the conflict interaction of homosexual and heterosexual couples using mathematical modeling techniques.

In the second study, they looked at factors influencing gay and lesbian couples' relationship satisfaction and dissolution.

"In the modeling paper we looked at processes, and they look so different you could draw a picture," said Gottman. "Straight couples start a conflict discussion in a much more negative place than do gays and lesbian couples. Homosexuals start the same kind of discussions with more humor and affection, are less domineering and show considerably more positive emotions than heterosexual couples.

"The way a discussion starts is critical. If it starts off in a bad way in a heterosexual relationship, we have found that it will become even more negative 96 percent of the time. Gays and lesbians are warmer, friendlier and less belligerent. You see it over and over in their discussions, and their partner is receiving the message they are communicating. In turn, their partner is allowing himself or herself to be influenced in a positive way. With married heterosexual couples a discussion is much more of a power struggle with someone being invalidated."

Gottman describes gay and lesbian relationships as being characterized by "the triumph of positive emotions over negative emotions." He stated that "Negative emotions have more impact in heterosexual relationships. This is why our previous research has shown you need a 5-to-1 ratio of positive to negative statements. This seems to be universal in heterosexual couples. But it may be different in gay and lesbian relationships where positive emotions seem to have a lot more power or influence."

The subjects of the studies did more than complete questionnaires. Researchers videotaped discussions each couple had about what occurred that day, a topic of ongoing conflict, and a pleasant topic. They analyzed the verbal and nonverbal content of their interaction during the talks and again at a later time when the partners viewed the tape individually. The researchers also collected an array of physiological data, including heart rate, during the conversations.

Homosexual couples were recruited in the San Francisco Bay area and they filled out a questionnaire that assessed relationship satisfaction. Forty pairs – 12 happy gay couples, 10 unhappy gay couples, 10 happy lesbian couples and 8 unhappy lesbian couples – were chosen to participate in the study. The comparison sample of married couples was drawn from a larger study that recruited couples from around Bloomington, Indiana.

It was matched in terms of age, marital satisfaction, education and income to the homosexual couples and consisted of 20 happy and 20 unhappy couples. The researchers went on to collect data for 12 years on the relationships of the homosexual couples. By then eight couples (20 percent) – one gay and seven lesbian – had broken up. This rate, if projected over a 40-year period, would be almost 64 percent, which is similar to the 67 percent divorce rate for first marriages among heterosexual couples of the same time span.

The research found that high levels of cardiovascular arousal among straight couples during a conflict predicted lower relationship satisfaction and higher risk for relationship dissolution. The reverse was actually true with homosexual couples. With gays and lesbians, low physiological arousal was related to these negative outcomes.

The gay and lesbian couples talked more openly about topics such as monogamy and sex. Heterosexual avoided talking about sex. This may be because their sexuality is already an issue when they deal with a largely heterosexual world. The authors content that such open and honest communication may improve the relationships of heterosexual couples.

Statement from Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"Despite their best efforts, the organizers of 'Justice Sunday' could not conceal what their campaign to force the Senate to vote on extremists nominated by President Bush to the federal judiciary is really all about – their hysterical fear that gay people will secure equal rights by doing the same thing minorities in the nation have done for more than 200 years – seeking redress through the courts.

Let's all be clear: there is no difference between the leaders of America's anti-gay industry and those leading the anti-filibuster campaign. They are one in the same.

Last year, the leading organizations behind 'Justice Sunday' – Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council – organized three simulcasts to 'protect marriage' that were virtually identical to Sunday's event. The previous simulcasts even featured many of the same speakers as those on Sunday.

The focus of the prior events was on 'activist judges' and marriage for gay people. On Sunday night, it was the same thing. Each speaker railed against 'activist judges,' their code for judges who render decisions based on the law – particularly decisions concerning rights for gay people – rather than based on political ideology.

Sunday night's speakers repeatedly brought it all back to marriage. Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson, said, 'Where is this leading? Where does it go? It goes directly to the redefinition of marriage.' Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler said, 'Justice Antonin Scalia warned us. He said this [United States Supreme] [C]ourt is ready to legalize same-sex marriage.' Bill Donohue, Catholic League for Religious Civil Rights President, chimed in with, '[T]he most insane idea I've ever heard in my whole life of two men getting married, I mean, that's something I expect in the asylum!'

Americans should understand that the religious and political Right is using gay people generally, and marriage equality specifically, as the leading edge of wedge to push through a broad reactionary agenda including a rollback of civil rights protections, ending constitutional protections of a woman's right to make reproductive health decisions, and dismantling the wall separating church and state. Those who will lose if this agenda succeeds must stand together and fight because, as Benjamin Franklin said, 'We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.'"

For more of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute's analysis, see "'Justice Sunday' Was Really About Demagoguery, Homophobia, and Politics" at http://www.thetaskforce.org/jsunday. For a comprehensive chart of judicial and executive branch nominees filibusters prior to the current presidential administration, see the chart developed by the People For the American Way from Congressional Research Service data at: http://media.pfaw.org/filibusters.pdf.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Roberta Sklar, Director of Communications, NGLTF
media@thetaskforce.org
646.358.1465

Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation (the Task Force) was the first national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization and remains the movement's leading voice for freedom, justice and equality. We work to build the grassroots political strength of our community by training state and local activists and leaders, working to strengthen the infrastructure of state and local allies, and organizing broad-based campaigns to build public support for complete equality for LGBT people.

WHAT GAY RIGHTS BACKLASH?
Editorial by Ramon Johnson

Gay Victories Only Stimulate Existing Homophobia

Mainstream media seems to believe the recent gay rights victories in the political and social arenas will inevitably result in a step backwards for gay equality. I must admit, the pressures from right-wing conservatives and the Vatican have heightened, but is their voice any different or more harsh than it's always been?

The positive advances in gay rights (stricken sodomy laws, same-sex marriage in Canada, openly gay clergymen) haven't altered the opinions or policies of homophobic politicians and institutions. They were never our friends before recent events and won't be after this push for gay equality. President Bush and the Catholic Church have never been known as gay supporters, so why the sudden fear? Could it be that their voices are currently louder than ours?

Gay equality has been an lingering and taboo issue until recently, forcing moderate citizens and politicians to take a stance one way or the other. We as a community are faced with a challenge that has the potential to change the lives of gays for decades to come. Was there not a "backlash" during the march on Stonewall? Were there not loudly vocalized opinions and threats of legal action during the passing of the same-sex marriage law in Canada? Were there not pressures from powerful anti-gay adversaries before the opening of the first gay public high school? Yet we prevailed; just as the original marches at Stonewall did.

Sure, it's easier for us to take the advice of those afraid of change and be content with current levels of "gay tolerance;" watching silently as our children lose even the existing rights those before us so diligently achieved. But isn't it far more rewarding to push for equal rights- rights few dreamed possible?

If you choose not to join in the new rally for gay equality for yourself, then consider the future of our gay youth, family and friends who will be greatly affected by the events that are happening today. Make history by contributing to the gay rights movement of the new millennium! There will always be a backlash from those that oppose gays, but it's up to us to overcome it and march forward.

DISCRIMINATION IS IMMORAL

Enough Said

Statement from Matt Foreman, Executive Director

National Gay And Lesbian Task Force

I'm hearing both gay and straight people say that the long string of losses we've faced at the polls around marriage equality are really our own fault; our community pushed too hard and too fast, they argue. The prominent theme being generated is that we have failed to "educate" the public about who we really are and get beyond the stereotypes of leather people, butch dykes, circuit boys and drag queens – and that it is now our obligation to reintroduce ourselves to the American people. I also repeatedly hear that it's up to us to reframe the terms of the debate away from "moral values" to simpler concepts, such as fairness, which polls indicate resonate most with the public.

I disagree. This is nothing more than the blame-the-victim mentality afflicting our nation generally and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement specifically.

Rather than reframing the debate away from moral values, we must embrace them. Or more precisely, the utter immorality of the escalating attacks against LGBT people. And, equally, the utter immorality in the failure of so many people of good will to stand with us. It is time for us to seize the moral high ground and state unambiguously that anti-gay discrimination in any form is immoral.

Webster's defines discrimination as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice." By any measure, LGBT people are targets of discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. FBI statistics show that more people are being murdered because of their sexual orientation than for any other bias reason. Our young people are still routinely bullied in schools. The examples of injustices in the area of partner and family recognition are too many to list.

No thinking or feeling person can deny these realities, which, as always, fall hardest on LGBT people of color and those who are poor.

But, alarmingly, rather than seeing a groundswell of support for measures to combat these injustices, the opposite is occurring. In Congress and in statehouses nationwide, it's rhetorical and legislative open season on LGBT people. For example, over the last nine months, anti-marriage state constitutional amendments were put on the ballot in 14 states, 10 of which also prohibit the recognition of any form of relationship between people of the same gender. It's likely another 12 states will have similar measures on the ballot within 3 years.

Nothing like this has happened since the Constitution was ratified in 1791 – essentially a national referendum inviting the public to vote to deprive a small minority of Americans of rights the majority takes for granted and sees as fundamental.

And who's been there to fight these amendments? Basically us, the very minority under attack. Mainstream media and churches are largely silent to our opponents' lies. Most progressive organizations and political campaigns, meanwhile, steer clear. There have been sterling exceptions, but they have been few and far between.

Many people who see themselves as supporters of equal rights for all tolerate this because they believe prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation is profoundly different than that based on race or religion – that it comes from an understandable disapproval of our behavior – not on some "immutable characteristic." Homosexual behavior, they feel, is "unnatural" (doesn't the Bible say so?). Pundits say there is an "ick" factor – that the thought of gay sex revolts non-gay people, and that this seemingly innate reaction is proof there is something wrong with homosexuality.

This rationale is hardly unique to gay people. Scholars point to comparable "ick" sentiments about Irish immigrants in the 1880s, and describe how in preceding generations sexual ideology was used to strengthen control over slaves and to justify the taking of Native American lands, and that for centuries Jews were associated with disease and urban degeneration.

Fact is, there is no justification for anti-gay prejudice; the "justifications" for it are as unfounded as those used to support the second-class treatment of other minorities in past generations.

First, everyone must realize that when straight people say gay people should not have the freedom to marry, they are saying we are not as good or deserving as they are. It's that simple, no matter how one attempts to sugarcoat it.

Second, while we should talk to straight people honestly about our lives, we must flatly reject the notion that we are somehow to blame for all of this because we have not effectively communicated our "stories" to others. Fundamentally, it is not our job to prove to others that we can be good neighbors, good parents, and that gee whiz, we're actually people too.

Third, equality will remain elusive if we keep relying on intellectualized arguments or by dryly cataloguing, for example, each of the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities we are forced to forgo due to marriage inequality.

In this vein, we must put others on the spot to stand up and fight for us. As the cascade of lies pours forth from the Anti-Gay Industry, morality demands that non-gay people speak out with the same vehemence as they would if it was another minority under attack. Ministers and rabbis must be challenged with the question, "Where is your voice?" Elected officials who meet with and attend events of the Anti-Gay Industry, must be met with the challenge, "How can you do that!? How is that public service?"

The orchestrated campaign to deny us jobs, family recognition, children, and housing is immoral. Silently bearing witness to this discrimination is immoral.

America is in the midst of another ugly chapter in its struggle with the forces of bigotry. People of good will can either rise up to speak for lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender Americans, or look back upon themselves 20 years from now with deserved shame.

HOW DO I KNOW
If I Am Gay?

From Ramon Johnson,
Your Guide to Gay Life

How Do I Know If I'm Gay?

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to determine if you are gay. There are no scientific tests or sterotypes that determine your sexuality. You will find out through experience and feelings.

Most define being gay as having a strong bond or sexual attraction to another man. Others define it as a lifestyle which includes behaviors and social interactions.

You should ask yourself several questions about your sexuality and sexual preferences. Do you prefer sex with a man? Are you physically attracted to men? Do you feel an emotional bond with a man? Would you consider an intimate relationship with a man?

Try not to fall into the trap of stereotypes. Gay men are just as diverse as straight men. There are no mannerisms, music or clothing preferences that can define a person as gay.

Of course you are! Being gay does not define who you are or make you any less of a person. At times it is not easy being gay, especially around those that are not supportive. Nonetheless, try to surround yourself by people who do support you and your lifestyle. You will soon see that gay and bisexual men interact with each other and the world as any other person would.

Some men experience homosexual encounters throughout their lives, but maintain their heterosexuality. There are many men who have had a sexual encounter with another man or are simply "curious." This does not necessarily mean they are gay. They are simply getting in touch with their sexuality. Many others experiment with both men and women to help them determine if they are gay, bisexual or straight (heterosexual).

A GAY BROTHER IN THE FAMILY

My Gay Brother

I can't say that I remember the particular day I realized my brother was gay, but I honestly feel that he was born as the person he is today. Growing up with my brother was very exciting and special for me because he was "my baby" in a sense. Our mother worked long hours on an afternoon shift in a dangerous and stressful job. I had two brothers to watch after being the oldest of three and "my baby" was the highlight of my day and night. I remember picking him up from daycare, walking him home, helping him with homework, drawing his evening bath and preparing his dinner for the night.

I enjoyed how my baby would follow me anywhere in the house. "My little shadow", I often called him. I nurtured him and aided in his path to a promising career. I reminded him endlessly of the rights and wrongs of the world as I knew them.

When my baby turned 10 or 11 years old he moved away to live with his dad. I felt alone because it seemed like the one person in my life who I felt needed me was being taken away. Over the years our relationship remained solid and my baby knew he could rely on me for anything. I missed him terribly.

As his senior year of high school approached I was honored to see my brother graduate with honors and high recommendations. I was proud to see that he had indeed been surrounded with great friendships, love and support from a wonderful staff of teachers.

During his college years is when I noticed his anger, his fears, and his pain. Living in the closet was literally killing him. I don't believe my baby had a clue that I even knew. My mom knew of course, but I strongly believe my baby struggled with revealing his choice with me. I will never forget one Saturday morning when he was in his last semester of college. He was very stressed and I offered to come to his side and help. He refused, saying I didn't understand. I told my baby that I did indeed understand. I knew he wasn't troubled with school or graduation, but the manner in which he chose to live. I loved him regardless.

In the end he became a college graduate (the first child of our family). I am definitely proud of him and being the person he's become could not have suited him better. I have enjoyed watching my baby become a very strong, dependable, loveable, dedicated, and admirable individual with characteristics no one posses but him.

Despite what people or family may think about his sexuality, the love I share with my brother as the person he is will never be divided. His sexuality is only a part of him and should be his personal business, unless otherwise discussed by him. His sexuality should in no way define his entire being. There is no chance I would ever cut him that short, especially when he means the world to me. I love you baby brother and I couldn't be more proud of all your accomplishments.

In short, learning about and living with the fact that my bother is gay has not altered my opinion of him in anyway. He is still my brother. Always has been and always will be.

IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT GLBT FILMS Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys