Via Rebel Prince, I discovered that a woman in Maryland was so upset by this picture of a gay couple, celebrating their recent marriage in Canada, in the Express news paper that the Washington post publishes, that she felt the need to express her outrage to publisher in writing.
Gay Marriage Photo Troubling
I was saddened to see the choice of photo on Friday’s front page about the legalization of gay marriage in Canada with the caption “Gay Milestone.” I am not against the rights of gays, but I am against having it put in my face at every turn. It saddens me that while doing a simple thing like reading the paper on my morning commute, I have to see this picture that I feel is morally wrong. I think that there are hundreds of other photos that would have conveyed what the article was about without showing two men kissing. I think that being gay is a lifestyle choice and I should not have to be a witness to it first thing Friday morning.
—LACHELLE WIMBISH
Suitland, Md.
Lachelle,
As a gay man in the Metro-DC area, and a fellow commuter, let me be blunt in my response: Fuck you.
That you are “saddened” to see two people celebrating their love for each other —in such a tame manner— says far more about you than it does about them. That it bothers you that these guys get a taste of equality, also speaks volumes.
You say that you’re “not against the rights of gays.” Bullshit, sister. Sure you’re not, so long as as you don’t have to see them, and so long as they don’t want the the same rights that you have. That you felt the need to prop yourself up in front of a keyboard and tap out your little missive gives you away. You’re no better than the people who just a few decades back were saying crap like “I’m not prejudiced. Why, some of my best friends are Negroes.” It didn’t wash then and it won’t wash now. Lachelle, baby, you are a bigot. Admitting it is the first step to recovery.
Now, about this business of not having gay relationships “put in your face.” Get over it. Let me tell you, I can’t turn on a television, open a magazine, or go to a movie without watching straight people practicallly fuck each other right in front of me. Watch the daytime soaps sometime if you don’t believe me. If I can live with that, you can live with an innocent little kiss. And if you can’t? Pity.
You can’t deal with a picture of two men who love each other kissing? It wasn’t even a kiss on the mouth. You don’t have to like it, of course, but there is something you can do: don’t fucking look. Build a bridge, and get over it. Turn the damn page, or better yet, bring your own reading material, since it’s less likely to offend you. Because you are going to be sorely disappointed if you expect us to slip back into the closet for the sake of your sensibilities, dear. And if you should see me and my husband holding hands on the Metro someday, you’d do well to keep any eye-rolling, sighing, and teeth-sucking to a minimum, because I won’t hesitate to inquire about the nature of your particular problem. Loudly.
I know this response is probably a little harsh, and that other readers of the paper have already schooled you a bit. It’s just that I felt all of the above really needed to be said, and needed to be said just the way I said it.
There. I feel much better now.
Smooches,
T.
Pingback: Andymatic » Blog Archive » Canada Gay Marriage Rant
Right on, T. *applauds*
ya know T is pissed. you can hear the Gawgia in his words. ROCK ON!
*standing ovation*
There’s one thing you were right about: You were harsh.
“lachelle wimbish”, i got to remember that name for a possible character in a book, you couldn’t make that name up!
Tom, he was harsh. And right about a lot of things. I think that is my first response (in my head) now every time someone says what she wrote. 40 years of that nonsense really really gets to you. Its getting really tiring.
Please tell me you also sent a copy of this to the newspaper?
trey,
For starters, ‘Lachelle Wimbish’ s name was probably not a ‘life choice.’ It might be prudent for you not to border on mocking her name — especially when your name is something people put used dishes on.
“Intolerance met by intolerance” is a curious thing.
… adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
Lachelle’s ‘not against gays’ but the subject of the photo is ‘morally wrong’.
Does she even know what she thinks? More to the point, DOES she think, or does she just parrot? (Wait, where did those feathers come from?) Good on you, T. Tell her in plain terms ’cause she’s got a problem with comprehension.
Tom, honey, Trey probably isn’t a tray. Different words, different meanings. Different derivations. One hopes you’re aware of that.
Otherwise, you’ll sound ignorant on the subject again some day. Especially when your name is something that’s also a male turkey.
Dee Dee,
Your name is wastefully redundant! What could you be thinking not to half it into something simpler. What!? Are you a parrot, foolishly accepting into adulthood the name your parents gave you — or that you came by in some other way!?
If you can’t comprehend what I’m saying, let me put this in words even you can understand: From now on your name is ‘Dee.’
sorry, tom, i wasn’t making fun of the name at all, i find it a very fascinating name and since i write short stories i’m always out for names that are unique and someone just couldn’t make up.
anyway, i dont’ want to fill up T’s blog with a flame war. So that will be the end of that.
Ha. Ha. It’s not a flame war. Please notice that I am only proving my point. Intolerance met by intolerance is a curious thing.
So, Tom, what’s your solution? What would be an appropriate response, in your estimation, from T to Ms Wimbish? Why — and how — should we tolerate people who want to make glbt folks second-class citizens? (Besides, Ms W’s letter is an attack — how does one tolerate an attack without simply surrendering?)
That probably sounds snarky in the context of this thread, but I don’t mean it that way. I’m seriously interested in your views, because (if I remember you rightly from other threads here) you’re not a bigot yourself, but you are taking a position I don’t understand. I can see no reason to treat Ms Wimbish with anything but the contempt she deserves — not even a realpolitik reason. If she represents a majority, it’s a slim and diminishing one; at this point in the evolution of social attitudes and mores, it seems to me counterproductive to accomodate her views, and far better to repudiate them.
sennoma,
Nice post. I will take up your challenge and do specifically what you ask — post a letter to Ms. Wimbish in this thread. I do need to provide a counterargument [of sorts] rather than just complain.
But I am not meaning to say that there is ONE attitude that everyone in the gay movement should take up. The Civil Rights movement needed Stokely Carmichael as much as it did MLK. A spectrum of opinion is as necessary as it is inevitable.
In two respects I think you are mistaken.
(1) Lachelle simply isn’t a bigot — or not in the sense that I have of the word. First off, she, like all of us, is a creature of her culture. She hasn’t been exposed to PDAs where the parties are of the same sex. Plus, she has been hammered in her life with the idea that homosexuality is wrong. She is, slowly, coming around — but things are changing too fast for her. I would guess that she is almost certainly an older woman who goes to a somewhat conservative Christian church regularly. Her letter is NOT the expression of outrage that T suggests.
(2) The “gay marriage” issue got routed in the recent election, so as a matter of realpolitik the broad center needs to be understood and their mistaken perceptions need to be addressed. “Victory” in the evolution of social attitudes isn’t inevitable. The dangers of failure are dire and real. Fifteen years from now, gays will either be an established, appreciated part of the mainstream or people will be sampling the DNA of their fetuses to have the “deformity” corrected by a DNA patch or an abortion.
it’s documented human nature, people speak to others the way they like to be spoken too. try it next time you encounter someone who swears alot in normal conversation. swear back, you will find they will actually warm up to you instead of backing away.
ms not-so-righteous obviously feels deeply about her ignorance and speaks it such. speaking in the same manner she does is not stooping to her level, more correctly, its speaking on a level she will understand.
*hugs*
sennoma,
This weekend, I will post my idea of a good letter to Ms. Wimbish in this thread, per your suggestion/challenge.
I don’t know, but I don’t think that Ms. W’s letter was meant as an attack on glbt folk.
She is almost certainly an older woman who goes to a moderate-to-conservative Christian church every Sunday. She lives in a cloistered world and is not yet used to some things that, in time, she will get used to and be comfortable with.
As a matter of realpolitik, with anti-gay marriage initiates passing by wide margins whenever they get on the ballot, I think your sense of the inevitability of the triumph of gay rights is premature.
– Tom
Dear Ms. Wimbish,
You say in your letter to the editor that you were saddened seeing a picture of two men kissing in the Friday morning Express. You say you personally believe this public display of affection, between men, is morally wrong.
I would hope that you would examine and think about what you have been taught. Socially encouraged revulsion toward males having affection for one another is a phenomena of the 20th Century in the West. A hundred years ago, Christian churches were unconcerned about homosexuality, it was masterbation that was the subject of preachers’ fiery hate-laced sermons. Today it is known that everyone except young children masturbate and we now know how hypocritical, hurtful and destructive the preachers of that long ago time were.
For the past one hundred years, society has stupidly and hurtfully tormented people who are physically attracted to persons of their same sex. You are simply flat wrong to think that being gay is necessarily a life choice. I can only suppose that you believe this because you are, yourself, attracted to women, but have chosen to be exclusively heterosexual. It has been scientifically determined that most people do not choose their sexual orientation. We are victims of our sexual orientation in the same way that we are victims of our eye color. We may no more choose our sexual preferences than we may choose our skin color.
Pictures of men kissing in the newspaper is something new. It is understandable that you would be taken aback. Forty years ago, except for Amos and Andy, there were no people of color on television in America. Job opportunity ads were divided between Help Wanted Men and Help Wanted Women. Blacks were restricted to the back of the bus. Schools and much of society was segregated. Slowly, things have been changing to open the opportunities for happiness to everyone.
In just a few years, for all of us, the sight of men kissing, in the newspaper or on the street, will be no more noticable than a man and woman doing the same. This is how it should be. We should want to live in a society where everyone wants the best for each other.
Sincerely,
Pingback: The Republic of T. » Dear Lilly