COMMENT
EIGHT IS ENOUGH
by Hendrik Hertzberg
DECEMBER 1, 2008
Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
—Ballot summary, Proposition 8.
You might think that an organization that for most of the first of its not yet two centuries of existence was the world’s most notorious proponent of startlingly unconventional forms of wedded bliss would be a little reticent about issuing orders to the rest of humanity specifying exactly who should be legally entitled to marry whom. But no. The Mormon Church—as anyone can attest who has ever answered the doorbell to find a pair of polite, persistent, adolescent “elders” standing on the stoop, tracts in hand—does not count reticence among the cardinal virtues. Nor does its own history of matrimonial excess bring a blush to its cheek. The original Latter-day Saint, Joseph Smith, acquired at least twenty-eight and perhaps sixty wives, some of them in their early teens, before he was lynched, in 1844, at age thirty-eight. Brigham Young, Smith’s immediate successor, was a bridegroom twenty times over, and his successors, along with much of the male Mormon élite, kept up the mass marrying until the nineteen-thirties—decades after the Church had officially disavowed polygamy, the price of Utah’s admission to the Union, in 1896. As Richard and Joan Ostling write in “Mormon America: The Power and the Promise” (2007), “Smith and his successors in Utah managed American history’s only wide-scale experiment in multiple wives, boldly challenging the nation’s entrenched family structure and the morality of Western Judeo-Christian culture.”
“MORMONS TIPPED SCALE IN BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE,” the Times headlined the week after Election Day, reflecting the views of proponents and opponents alike. Six and a half million Californians voted for Proposition 8, and six million voted against it—a four-point margin, close enough for a single factor to make the difference. Almost all the early canvassers for the cause were Mormons, but the most important contributions were financial. The normal political pattern is for money to get raised in California and spent elsewhere. This time, Salt Lake City played the role of Hollywood, rural Utah was the new Silicon Valley, and California was cast as flyover country. Of the forty million dollars spent on behalf of Prop. 8, some twenty million came from members or organs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Some conservative commentators, who didn’t have much else to gloat about, dwelt lingeringly on what they evidently regarded as the upside of the huge, Obama-sparked African-American turnout. “It was the black vote that voted down gay marriage,” Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, insisted triumphantly—and, it turns out, wrongly. If exit polling is to be believed, seventy per cent of California’s African-American voters did indeed vote yes on Prop. 8, as did upward of eighty per cent of Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, and weekly churchgoers. But the initiative would have passed, barely, even if not a single African-American had shown up at the polls.
Still, this was a fight that should have been won, and after the initial shock—which tempted a few gay and lesbian voices to blame blacks for what O’Reilly credited them with—California’s gay activists and their straight allies, judging from their online postmortems, have begun to direct more criticism at themselves than at their opponents. They were complacent: early polls had shown Prop. 8 losing by double digits. Their television ads were timid and ineffective, focussing on worthy abstractions like equality and fairness, while the other side’s were powerfully emotional. (Also dishonest—they implied that gay marriage would threaten churches’ tax exemptions, force church-affiliated adoption agencies to place children with gay couples, and oblige children to attend gay weddings—but that sort of thing was to be expected.) Barack Obama, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, had come out against Prop. 8, yet the No-on-8 forces let Obama’s popularity be used against them: a mass mailing suggesting that the Democratic nominee was for it went essentially unanswered.
The defenders of equal access to marriage, in other words, think their problem was tactical—“messaging,” not substance. They are probably right. In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful. From 1998 to 2006, bans on same-sex marriage were put on the ballot in one state or another thirty times, and twenty-nine times the people voted for them. This year, in addition to California, Florida passed a ban; Arizona, which in 2006 had been the one exception, reversed itself and did the same; more cruelly, Arkansas approved a ballot measure depriving gay men and lesbians of the right to adopt children. But all this has about it the feel of a last stand.
Four years ago, Howard Dean’s Presidential campaign worried that its undoing would be the fact that as governor of Vermont Dean had signed a bill allowing gays and lesbians to form civil unions; that turned out to be the least of his troubles. Now large majorities of Americans favor laws under which same-sex couples have all or most of the same rights as couples of opposite sexes, and five states, including California, have enacted them. Gay marriage itself is legal, and not terribly controversial, in Massachusetts and Connecticut. In 1993, most Americans thought that open homosexuals shouldn’t be permitted to serve in the military; now three-quarters think that they should. And the polls show that the younger you are the more likely you are to favor equal treatment of gays and straights in every area of public and private life. The Field Poll, one of California’s most respected, found last month that while the state’s over-sixty-fives oppose gay marriage by a thirty-point margin, the under-thirty-fives favor it by thirteen points—and it’s hard to think of a reason that getting older should change their minds.
Like a polluted swamp, anti-gay bigotry is likely to get thicker and more toxic as it dries up. Viciousness meets viscousness. “Look,” Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, said the other day (on the air, to Bill O’Reilly), “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence. . . . I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.” For diversity’s sake, he added that “the historic version of Islam” and “the historic version of Judaism” are likewise menaced—which is natural, given that gay, secular, fascist values are “the opposite of what you’re taught in Sunday school.”
This sort of sludge may or may not prove to be of some slight utility in the 2012 Republican primaries, but it is, increasingly, history. A couple of days before the California vote, the San Francisco Chronicle’s John Wildermuth noticed a “No on Prop 8” sign on a front lawn. The lawn and the sign belonged to Steve Young, the football Hall of Famer and former 49er quarterback, and his wife, Barb. Steve Young is a graduate of Brigham Young University, which is named for his great-great-great-grandfather. The Youngs still belong to the Mormon Church. “We believe all families matter and we do not believe in discrimination,” Barb Young said. “Therefore, our family will vote against Prop 8.” It wasn’t enough this time. But the time is coming. ♦
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Faces of AIDS and HIV
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Perspective from The National Review
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
November 24, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
Legislating Immorality
By the Editors
Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.
The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.
The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?
Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.
To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.
There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.
Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.
Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”
Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.
National Review Online
November 24, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
Legislating Immorality
By the Editors
Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.
The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.
The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?
Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.
To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.
There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.
Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.
Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”
Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.
National Review Online
Times Article on Funding for Prop 8
THE NEW YORK TIMES
November 26, 2008
Inquiry Set on Mormon Aid for California Marriage Vote
By JESSE McKINLEY
SAN FRANCISCO — California officials will investigate accusations that the Mormon Church neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions — including phone banks, a Web site and commercials — on behalf of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.
Roman Porter, the executive director of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees California campaign finance laws, signed off on the investigation after reviewing a sworn complaint filed on Nov. 13.
The complaint, filed by Fred Karger, founder of the group Californians Against Hate, asserted that the church’s reported contributions — about $5,000, according to state election filings — vastly underestimated its actual efforts in passing Proposition 8, which amended the state’s Constitution to recognize only male-female marriage.
Broadly speaking, California state law requires disclosure of any money spent or services provided to influence the outcome of an election.
Mr. Porter said the announcement of the investigation was not “a determination on the validity of the claims or the culpability of the individuals,” but that the claims had been reviewed by a lawyer for the commission and its chief of enforcement and deemed worth pursuing.
Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement Tuesday saying it had received the complaint and would cooperate with the investigation. Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the leading group behind Proposition 8, said the accusations were baseless and made by a “rogue group.”
Responding to a plea from Mormon Church leaders to “become involved in this important cause,” members contributed millions of dollars and volunteered for countless hours on behalf of Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed with 52 percent of the vote, leading to protests and boycotts of supporters of the proposition, including some Mormon temples and businesses.
Mr. Karger’s complaint paints a sweeping picture of the involvement by the church leadership, and raises questions about who paid for out-of-state phone banks and grass-roots rallies in California before the Nov. 4 vote.
“Who paid for the buses, travel costs, meals and other expenses of all the Mormon participants?” the complaint reads. “No contributions were reported.”
The complaint also touches on a five-state simulcast from church leaders to Mormon congregations, as well as a Web site, preservingmarriage.org, that featured a series of videos advocating passage of the ballot measure and is labeled “an official Web site” of the Mormon Church.
Ms. Farah said the church had no comment on the particular accusations in the complaint.
If found in violation of election laws, the church could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Mr. Porter said. Bigger fines could also be levied by a civil court.
Mr. Karger said he respected the right of Mormons to vote in line with their religious beliefs, but added “if they’re going to play politics, then they need to play by the rules.”
The California Supreme Court agreed last week to review the constitutionality of the measure, with a ruling expected next year.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
November 26, 2008
Inquiry Set on Mormon Aid for California Marriage Vote
By JESSE McKINLEY
SAN FRANCISCO — California officials will investigate accusations that the Mormon Church neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions — including phone banks, a Web site and commercials — on behalf of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.
Roman Porter, the executive director of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees California campaign finance laws, signed off on the investigation after reviewing a sworn complaint filed on Nov. 13.
The complaint, filed by Fred Karger, founder of the group Californians Against Hate, asserted that the church’s reported contributions — about $5,000, according to state election filings — vastly underestimated its actual efforts in passing Proposition 8, which amended the state’s Constitution to recognize only male-female marriage.
Broadly speaking, California state law requires disclosure of any money spent or services provided to influence the outcome of an election.
Mr. Porter said the announcement of the investigation was not “a determination on the validity of the claims or the culpability of the individuals,” but that the claims had been reviewed by a lawyer for the commission and its chief of enforcement and deemed worth pursuing.
Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement Tuesday saying it had received the complaint and would cooperate with the investigation. Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the leading group behind Proposition 8, said the accusations were baseless and made by a “rogue group.”
Responding to a plea from Mormon Church leaders to “become involved in this important cause,” members contributed millions of dollars and volunteered for countless hours on behalf of Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed with 52 percent of the vote, leading to protests and boycotts of supporters of the proposition, including some Mormon temples and businesses.
Mr. Karger’s complaint paints a sweeping picture of the involvement by the church leadership, and raises questions about who paid for out-of-state phone banks and grass-roots rallies in California before the Nov. 4 vote.
“Who paid for the buses, travel costs, meals and other expenses of all the Mormon participants?” the complaint reads. “No contributions were reported.”
The complaint also touches on a five-state simulcast from church leaders to Mormon congregations, as well as a Web site, preservingmarriage.org, that featured a series of videos advocating passage of the ballot measure and is labeled “an official Web site” of the Mormon Church.
Ms. Farah said the church had no comment on the particular accusations in the complaint.
If found in violation of election laws, the church could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Mr. Porter said. Bigger fines could also be levied by a civil court.
Mr. Karger said he respected the right of Mormons to vote in line with their religious beliefs, but added “if they’re going to play politics, then they need to play by the rules.”
The California Supreme Court agreed last week to review the constitutionality of the measure, with a ruling expected next year.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Le Centre LGBT Paris
Everyone is expected to visit the LGBT Centre in Paris this semester. Unfortunately, their opening times do not correspond with our class period, so we will all have to go outside of class time. We can discuss a time that would suit most people and those who cannot come can visit the center separately. There will be a reaction essay on the final exam regarding your visit to the center.
Le Centre LGBT | Paris• Ile-de-France
63, rue Beaubourg / 75003 PARIS
(Literally just around the corner from CEA)
Monday : 18h - 20h
Tuesday : 15h - 20h
Wednesday : 12h30 - 20h
Thursday : 15h - 20h
Friday : 12h30 - 20h
Saturday : 12h30 - 20h
Sunday : 16h - 19h, Café Lunettes Rouges
Upcoming Events:
Le Centre LGBT | Paris• Ile-de-France
63, rue Beaubourg / 75003 PARIS
(Literally just around the corner from CEA)
Monday : 18h - 20h
Tuesday : 15h - 20h
Wednesday : 12h30 - 20h
Thursday : 15h - 20h
Friday : 12h30 - 20h
Saturday : 12h30 - 20h
Sunday : 16h - 19h, Café Lunettes Rouges
Upcoming Events:
HARVEY MILK
My real life boyfriend, James Franco, playing Scott Smith in MILK.
Director Gus Van Sant uses the account of one of the country's first openly gay public officials, who was assassinated in 1978, to invest the gay rights movement with mythic grandeur, as a successor to all the heroic social protest movements in American history. Van Sant's point of view may be a matter of politics, outside the scope of a review, but his success in putting over his point of view is a question of art.
Harvey Bernard Milk (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American politician and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk was born and raised in New York where he acknowledged his homosexuality as an adolescent, but chose to pursue sexual relationships with secrecy and discretion well into his adult years. His experience in the counterculture of the 1960s caused him to shed many of his conservative views about individual freedom and the expression of sexuality.
Milk moved to San Francisco in 1972 and opened a camera store. Although he had been restless, holding an assortment of jobs and moving house frequently, he settled in the Castro District, a neighborhood that was experiencing a mass immigration of gay men and lesbians. He was compelled to run for city supervisor in 1973, though he encountered resistance from the existing gay political establishment. His campaign was compared to theater; he was brash, outspoken, animated, and outrageous, earning media attention and votes, although not enough to be elected. He campaigned again in the next two supervisor elections, dubbing himself the "Mayor of Castro Street". Voters responded enough to warrant his running for the California State Assembly as well. Taking advantage of his growing popularity, he led the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives. Milk was elected city supervisor in 1977 after San Francisco reorganized its election procedures to choose representatives from neighborhoods rather than through city-wide ballots.
Milk served almost eleven months as city supervisor and was responsible for passing a stringent gay rights ordinance in San Francisco. On November 27, 1978, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor who had recently resigned and wanted his job back. Both Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated the liberalization of the population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force.
Milk has become an icon in San Francisco and "a martyr for gay rights", according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak.[1] While established political organizers in the city insisted gays work with liberal politicians and use restraint in reaching their objectives, Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to use their growing power in the city and support each other. His goal was to give hope to disenfranchised gays around the country. In 2002, he was called "the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States".[2] Writer John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco in 1977 to become a member of its board of supervisors, many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed."[3]
Sunday, November 23, 2008
1 Decembre 2008
ACT UP PARIS
excerpts taken from Chapter 14: ACT UP: The History of a Political Movement
The Pink and the Black _Frédéric Martel
ACT UP PARIS Website
Origins:
"ACT UP is a group based on anger." (p. 295)
Larry Kramer: New York | 1981
"Larry Kramer acquired a sulfurous reputation by denouncing, in his prophetic novel, promiscuity, back rooms, and the obsession with sex. Because he criticized what was at teh time the very essence of the homosexual lifestyle, Kramer was viciously taken to talk in 1978 by gay activists, who denounced his persistent guilt, 'gay homophobia,' self-loathing, hidden moralizing, and proselytizing hatred of sex." (p. 285)
"With 20,000 Americans already dead of AIDS, Kramer hoped for a return to radical grassroots militancy. On March 8, 1987, he created the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, known by the acronym ACT UP. The organization adopted the slogan "AIDS is our holocaust;" it chose the pink triangle as its emblem, but, symbolically, inverted it so that the tip pointed upward, like a weapon that has been turned upside down. An openly homosexual organization, ACT UP chose provocation, as indicated in such slogans as 'The government has blood on its hands.' 'ACT UP is a rude, nasty organization, like the virus that is killing us,' wrote Kramer." (p. 287)
"In conjunction with ACT UP, American homosexuals invented the practice of 'outing,' publicly revealing the homosexuality or HIV status of a person reputed to be a 'closet queen' or a conservative." (p. 287)
The French Context:
In an interview, published by The Observer in England (in June 1991), Edith Cresson (the new French Prime Minister under Mitterrand at the time) is quoted as saying:
"In English-speaking countries most men prefer the company of other men, but most of these men are homosexual - maybe not the majority, but in the United States a full 25 percent of them are, and in England and Germany it's nearly the same thing...I don't know whether that's a biological or cultural fact, but I remember noticing in London - and all the girls make the same observation - that men don't look at you in the street...Anglo-Saxons are not interested in women as women...It's a problem of upbringing and I consider that a kind of illness." (p. 288)
In a later interview with ABC, she went on to add:
"A man who is not interested in a woman, that seems bizarre to me...I think [heterosexuality] is better. Homosexuality is different and marginal. It exists more in the Anglo-Saxon tradition than in the Latin tradition. Everyone knows that. It's a fact of civilization." (p. 289)
ACT UP in PARIS:
It was Didier Lestrade who "wondered whether it might be a good time to create an ACT UP organization in Paris. Lestrade was a reporter for Gai Pied Hebdo and Libération...He marveled at American homosexual life, with its chosen ghettos and communitarian political culture, and even more at the strong-arm tactics of ACT UP-New York. 'I went through the 1980s like the queers of that time: going out, having fun, cruising, fucking, not thinking. We had an irrational side when it came to the disease. Until very late, I was looking the other way.' Lestrade was infected with HIV at a late date - in early 1987, when, as a contributer to Gai Pied, he was perfectly well-informed of the risks. He awaited the signal from his friends to launch the ACT UP venture. He was thirty years old." (p. 291)
Early ACT UP-Paris Activities:
"Militants picketed in front of the National Assembly, manipulating powerful images and words. Their signs were translated into French: 'silence=mort' and 'action=vie.' On December 1, 1989, they demonstrated against the church's opposition to condoms, making catcalls and shouting, 'Condoms are life, but the church forbids them!' They hung a banner reading 'OUI A LA CAPOTE' (Yes to condoms) between the towers of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris. Later (May, 1990) the prime minister's Service d'Information et de Diffusion was 'zapped' because it has censored the AFLS subway campaign. The city of Paris was hit (June, 1990) for its 'AIDS plan,' which was judged too timid. The Senate was zapped (May, 1991) for trying to make it a crime to transmit the virus and for reinstating homosexuality as a criminal offense." (p. 291)
"ZAPS": (rapid actions against a person, a media outlet, or an organization)
"The organization used slogans that were Manichean ('AIDS: Mitterrand is guilty' 'Got HIV? France prefers you dead'), political ('Infected under Mitterrand, dead under Chirac'), oddly demanding ('Give me T cells, Balladur!') [a reference to Prime Minister Edouard Balladur], provocative and vulgar ('Proud to exist, proud to fist'), and even morbid (at Père-Lachaise Cemetery, militants spray-painted 'Look, the state is investing in your future!' or shouted 'Make way, we're coming!'). The watchwords were often amusing, vaguely Dadaist ('Eat apples to fight AIDS!'), or bordering on self-ridicule ('AIDS is disco'). They could also be sentimental, as in this moving slogan on Gay Pride Day in 1992: I WANT YOU TO LIVE!" (p. 292)
How is this approach effective? Was it needed at the time, given the political context? Still? Why? In what ways could this approach be ineffective?
French Response:
"Beyond the debates and the tone adopted by ACT UP, the former president of the republic's silence on the AIDS issue remains incomprehensible. All in all, the disease, which appeared when he was elected in 1981 and increased tenfold during his two seven-year terms, was never the object of the slightest assessment on his part. Thus Mitterrand failed to address one of the key issues of the century's end, an issue encompassing both exclusion and discrimination." (p. 292)
Did things change immediately, even within the organization?
"There was a real lack of courage on our part. We distributed ACT UP pamphlets at the entrances to gay bars, even though we knew very well that people inside were fucking without condoms. We should have gone in and cleaned out the fucked-up mess inside. For my part, I have always supported a minority position, which was and still is to have the back rooms closed down..." (p. 298)
ACT UP | Aides
"On May 21, 1994, a few hundred militants from ACT UP-Paris lay on the ground on the parvis Beaubourg for the 'day of despair,' among pictures of coffins, slogans about the hecatomb, and, in ACT UP's newspaper, many reproductions of death's heads. A week later, on May 29, Aides organized the 'march for life' from the Palais Omnisports in Bercy to the Eiffel Tower. There were several thousand marchers in a joyful, easygoing, familial atmosphere; in the end, several thousand francs in donations were collected. These two demonstrations in themselves mark the distinction between ACT UP and Aides." (p. 300)
Aides: It's not your fault you are sick
ACT UP: It is other people's fault you are sick
Lestrade: "There is a great deal of violence within ACT UP because of the despair, the anger, and the grief. This despair was put to use, channeled somewhere. Militants were told: 'You're scared, you're angry, you can do something with that anger.' ACT UP is the only organization that channels that anger outward." (p. 302)
"ACT UP also distinguishes itself from Aides in its strong declaration of homosexual identity, transforming a social stigma into a positive identity. Aides may have appeared more 'apologetic' - something for which it has naturally been criticized by ACT UP. In Aides, people are homosexual. In ACT UP, they are queer." (p. 302)
Philippe Mangeot (a student at Ecole Normale and an activist at ACT UP) says:
"ACT UP is a place of circulating desires. I have two fiancés right now: I found both of them at ACT UP. I've sometimes thought the Aides guys were better-looking, though. But the goal of ACT UP is to have the best-looking guys in Paris! ACT UP is a cruising group, but it's also a group where people whose sexuality is not yet defined can come, and where they often have their first homosexual experiences. For example, even the straights in ACT UP are queer! That's a joy to me. There's a process of becoming queer in ACT UP." (p. 304)
The Pink Condom:
"On December 1, 1993, the spectacular action of putting a giant fluorescent pink condom on the obelisk at the Place de la Concorde made all of France smile." (p. 306)
The Pink and the Black _Frédéric Martel
ACT UP PARIS Website
Origins:
"ACT UP is a group based on anger." (p. 295)
Larry Kramer: New York | 1981
"Larry Kramer acquired a sulfurous reputation by denouncing, in his prophetic novel, promiscuity, back rooms, and the obsession with sex. Because he criticized what was at teh time the very essence of the homosexual lifestyle, Kramer was viciously taken to talk in 1978 by gay activists, who denounced his persistent guilt, 'gay homophobia,' self-loathing, hidden moralizing, and proselytizing hatred of sex." (p. 285)
"With 20,000 Americans already dead of AIDS, Kramer hoped for a return to radical grassroots militancy. On March 8, 1987, he created the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, known by the acronym ACT UP. The organization adopted the slogan "AIDS is our holocaust;" it chose the pink triangle as its emblem, but, symbolically, inverted it so that the tip pointed upward, like a weapon that has been turned upside down. An openly homosexual organization, ACT UP chose provocation, as indicated in such slogans as 'The government has blood on its hands.' 'ACT UP is a rude, nasty organization, like the virus that is killing us,' wrote Kramer." (p. 287)
"In conjunction with ACT UP, American homosexuals invented the practice of 'outing,' publicly revealing the homosexuality or HIV status of a person reputed to be a 'closet queen' or a conservative." (p. 287)
The French Context:
In an interview, published by The Observer in England (in June 1991), Edith Cresson (the new French Prime Minister under Mitterrand at the time) is quoted as saying:
"In English-speaking countries most men prefer the company of other men, but most of these men are homosexual - maybe not the majority, but in the United States a full 25 percent of them are, and in England and Germany it's nearly the same thing...I don't know whether that's a biological or cultural fact, but I remember noticing in London - and all the girls make the same observation - that men don't look at you in the street...Anglo-Saxons are not interested in women as women...It's a problem of upbringing and I consider that a kind of illness." (p. 288)
In a later interview with ABC, she went on to add:
"A man who is not interested in a woman, that seems bizarre to me...I think [heterosexuality] is better. Homosexuality is different and marginal. It exists more in the Anglo-Saxon tradition than in the Latin tradition. Everyone knows that. It's a fact of civilization." (p. 289)
ACT UP in PARIS:
It was Didier Lestrade who "wondered whether it might be a good time to create an ACT UP organization in Paris. Lestrade was a reporter for Gai Pied Hebdo and Libération...He marveled at American homosexual life, with its chosen ghettos and communitarian political culture, and even more at the strong-arm tactics of ACT UP-New York. 'I went through the 1980s like the queers of that time: going out, having fun, cruising, fucking, not thinking. We had an irrational side when it came to the disease. Until very late, I was looking the other way.' Lestrade was infected with HIV at a late date - in early 1987, when, as a contributer to Gai Pied, he was perfectly well-informed of the risks. He awaited the signal from his friends to launch the ACT UP venture. He was thirty years old." (p. 291)
Early ACT UP-Paris Activities:
"Militants picketed in front of the National Assembly, manipulating powerful images and words. Their signs were translated into French: 'silence=mort' and 'action=vie.' On December 1, 1989, they demonstrated against the church's opposition to condoms, making catcalls and shouting, 'Condoms are life, but the church forbids them!' They hung a banner reading 'OUI A LA CAPOTE' (Yes to condoms) between the towers of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris. Later (May, 1990) the prime minister's Service d'Information et de Diffusion was 'zapped' because it has censored the AFLS subway campaign. The city of Paris was hit (June, 1990) for its 'AIDS plan,' which was judged too timid. The Senate was zapped (May, 1991) for trying to make it a crime to transmit the virus and for reinstating homosexuality as a criminal offense." (p. 291)
"ZAPS": (rapid actions against a person, a media outlet, or an organization)
"The organization used slogans that were Manichean ('AIDS: Mitterrand is guilty' 'Got HIV? France prefers you dead'), political ('Infected under Mitterrand, dead under Chirac'), oddly demanding ('Give me T cells, Balladur!') [a reference to Prime Minister Edouard Balladur], provocative and vulgar ('Proud to exist, proud to fist'), and even morbid (at Père-Lachaise Cemetery, militants spray-painted 'Look, the state is investing in your future!' or shouted 'Make way, we're coming!'). The watchwords were often amusing, vaguely Dadaist ('Eat apples to fight AIDS!'), or bordering on self-ridicule ('AIDS is disco'). They could also be sentimental, as in this moving slogan on Gay Pride Day in 1992: I WANT YOU TO LIVE!" (p. 292)
How is this approach effective? Was it needed at the time, given the political context? Still? Why? In what ways could this approach be ineffective?
French Response:
"Beyond the debates and the tone adopted by ACT UP, the former president of the republic's silence on the AIDS issue remains incomprehensible. All in all, the disease, which appeared when he was elected in 1981 and increased tenfold during his two seven-year terms, was never the object of the slightest assessment on his part. Thus Mitterrand failed to address one of the key issues of the century's end, an issue encompassing both exclusion and discrimination." (p. 292)
Did things change immediately, even within the organization?
"There was a real lack of courage on our part. We distributed ACT UP pamphlets at the entrances to gay bars, even though we knew very well that people inside were fucking without condoms. We should have gone in and cleaned out the fucked-up mess inside. For my part, I have always supported a minority position, which was and still is to have the back rooms closed down..." (p. 298)
ACT UP | Aides
"On May 21, 1994, a few hundred militants from ACT UP-Paris lay on the ground on the parvis Beaubourg for the 'day of despair,' among pictures of coffins, slogans about the hecatomb, and, in ACT UP's newspaper, many reproductions of death's heads. A week later, on May 29, Aides organized the 'march for life' from the Palais Omnisports in Bercy to the Eiffel Tower. There were several thousand marchers in a joyful, easygoing, familial atmosphere; in the end, several thousand francs in donations were collected. These two demonstrations in themselves mark the distinction between ACT UP and Aides." (p. 300)
Aides: It's not your fault you are sick
ACT UP: It is other people's fault you are sick
Lestrade: "There is a great deal of violence within ACT UP because of the despair, the anger, and the grief. This despair was put to use, channeled somewhere. Militants were told: 'You're scared, you're angry, you can do something with that anger.' ACT UP is the only organization that channels that anger outward." (p. 302)
"ACT UP also distinguishes itself from Aides in its strong declaration of homosexual identity, transforming a social stigma into a positive identity. Aides may have appeared more 'apologetic' - something for which it has naturally been criticized by ACT UP. In Aides, people are homosexual. In ACT UP, they are queer." (p. 302)
Philippe Mangeot (a student at Ecole Normale and an activist at ACT UP) says:
"ACT UP is a place of circulating desires. I have two fiancés right now: I found both of them at ACT UP. I've sometimes thought the Aides guys were better-looking, though. But the goal of ACT UP is to have the best-looking guys in Paris! ACT UP is a cruising group, but it's also a group where people whose sexuality is not yet defined can come, and where they often have their first homosexual experiences. For example, even the straights in ACT UP are queer! That's a joy to me. There's a process of becoming queer in ACT UP." (p. 304)
The Pink Condom:
"On December 1, 1993, the spectacular action of putting a giant fluorescent pink condom on the obelisk at the Place de la Concorde made all of France smile." (p. 306)
anti-gay blacklist
a list of people/companies who donated to fund proposition 8:
http://antigayblacklist.com/
http://antigayblacklist.com/
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
... about the last post
You need to link to the Huffington Post link, to see the O'Reilly video. Sorry it wouldn't let me put it on the page.
Bill O'Reilly's Pseudo-Documentary
Bill O'Reilly is scared. As a daring crusader on the side of "traditional America" in the war against "secular progressives," O'Reilly fears that the "far left" will push President-elect Obama to embrace their values. As an example of the horrors that would befall us if this were to happen, O'Reilly offers up a surreal pseudo-documentary of San Francisco. O'Reilly sends producer Jesse Waters, whose sole journalistic value seems to be his utter lack of shame at chasing after and ambushing anyone O'Reilly points his finger at, to San Francisco because it represents 'far left government' at work.
Watching this video, one would think that ninety percent of San Francisco's population are either homeless, addicted to drugs, prostitutes, crazy, or some mix of all these. The video is an unbelievable smear on a great American city. The only thing worse than the video's message is the production value. After showing the video, O'Reilly interviews Waters for insight into how San Franciscans can live in such moral and physical squalor. Waters basically says the citizens of Frisco have accepted, and adjusted to, the fact their city is a hell hole. Actually, the city is so beyond the pale that O'Reilly once said he wouldn't mind if Al Qaida attacked the city. Watch and judge for yourself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/bill-oreilly-smears-san-f_n_144734.html
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Chapter 4: S'assumer dans la famille: Coming out in the French (Republican) Family
excerpts from: Queer French: Globalization, Language, and Sexual Citizenship in France
_Denis M. Provencher
filiation: symbolic link between parents and children
"..home is still the site where young people spend lengthy periods of time with a parent or parent and siblings...Even when young people leave home, the family home is still the site through which many of their individual biographies and expectations are routed and consequently where the emotional functioning of the family is often played out." (p. 119)
French conservatives present a universalizing discourse where that which is 'biologically universal' in nature (that is male/female sex roles; opposite-sex pairings) become 'symbolically universal' (that is acceptable gender and parental roles; legitimate parent-child bonds) both in French culture and in a more 'universal culture'. (p. 123)
It is on this basis that gay adoption is met with such resistance in France. "They (those who resist adoption) explain that sexual difference is a fundamental (anthropological) reference that is prepolitical insofar as it structures society: as a consequence, it should not be trifled with politically. Filiation without sexual difference would thus undermine a symbolic order that is they very condition of our ability to think and live in a society." (p. 122)
Moderate politicians in France support homosexuals and their rights claims as long as they continue to occupy a 'subversive position' as exemplified in the PaCS civil union that keeps them outside of the traditional family unit. "Middle-ground reformists prefer 'disorderly conduct' among homosexuals: as long as homosexuality remains subversive, it will not subvert the 'symbolic order' of heterosexuality...toleration for homosexuality should not lead to its inclusion within the family." (p. 123)
Hence, many French gays and lesbians may hold a general discussion about sexuality with their parents, however a discussion of the individual's sexual practices or their particular homosexual identity remains 'indicible' (unspeakable) or even taboo. (p. 125)
Gabriel (29-year-old gay man from a middle-class Parisian family, web designer and aspiring artist) *p. 127
Nadine (39-year-old lesbian who worked as a police officer in Lyon, grew up with an older sister and younger brother in a village of 5,000 inhabitants outside of Lyon, where both parents worked as bakers. On her 36th birthday she told her parents) *p. 133
These are the opening credits for the French reality television program Loft Story (like Big Brother) from 2002. Thomas, one of the characters, was first introduced on the show as a virgin and he developed a reputation as such among his co-lofters. His supposed sexual naivete and shyness prompted co-lofter David to seek additional information - the scene follows where five of the lofters discuss Thomas's same-sex preference during one of their 'natural' daily interactions. *(p. 139)
_Denis M. Provencher
filiation: symbolic link between parents and children
"..home is still the site where young people spend lengthy periods of time with a parent or parent and siblings...Even when young people leave home, the family home is still the site through which many of their individual biographies and expectations are routed and consequently where the emotional functioning of the family is often played out." (p. 119)
French conservatives present a universalizing discourse where that which is 'biologically universal' in nature (that is male/female sex roles; opposite-sex pairings) become 'symbolically universal' (that is acceptable gender and parental roles; legitimate parent-child bonds) both in French culture and in a more 'universal culture'. (p. 123)
It is on this basis that gay adoption is met with such resistance in France. "They (those who resist adoption) explain that sexual difference is a fundamental (anthropological) reference that is prepolitical insofar as it structures society: as a consequence, it should not be trifled with politically. Filiation without sexual difference would thus undermine a symbolic order that is they very condition of our ability to think and live in a society." (p. 122)
Moderate politicians in France support homosexuals and their rights claims as long as they continue to occupy a 'subversive position' as exemplified in the PaCS civil union that keeps them outside of the traditional family unit. "Middle-ground reformists prefer 'disorderly conduct' among homosexuals: as long as homosexuality remains subversive, it will not subvert the 'symbolic order' of heterosexuality...toleration for homosexuality should not lead to its inclusion within the family." (p. 123)
Hence, many French gays and lesbians may hold a general discussion about sexuality with their parents, however a discussion of the individual's sexual practices or their particular homosexual identity remains 'indicible' (unspeakable) or even taboo. (p. 125)
Gabriel (29-year-old gay man from a middle-class Parisian family, web designer and aspiring artist) *p. 127
Nadine (39-year-old lesbian who worked as a police officer in Lyon, grew up with an older sister and younger brother in a village of 5,000 inhabitants outside of Lyon, where both parents worked as bakers. On her 36th birthday she told her parents) *p. 133
These are the opening credits for the French reality television program Loft Story (like Big Brother) from 2002. Thomas, one of the characters, was first introduced on the show as a virgin and he developed a reputation as such among his co-lofters. His supposed sexual naivete and shyness prompted co-lofter David to seek additional information - the scene follows where five of the lofters discuss Thomas's same-sex preference during one of their 'natural' daily interactions. *(p. 139)
Chapter 3: French Articulations of the Closet and Coming Out
excerpts from: Queer French: Globalization, Language, and Sexual Citizenship in France
_Denis M. Provencher
Oscar reacts to the term "coming out":
'Faire le coming-out,' it bothers me this American cliche, you know, these kinds of theatrical things, at the same time, I really do not know the US very well, but I have this impression that it's there where everything is dramatized, right, we have the impression that people are always playing roles. (p. 86)
Jean-Louis:
It's an expression that means...but for me no...it's an expression...it would be easier to say 'declare one's homosexuality,' it's easier. It's a bit idiotic, by the way. No...for me...to be 'out,' it's someone who...a homosexual...who openly accepts homosexuality. (p. 86)
In many coming out narratives, 'protagonists exhibit a period of suffering before coming out...self-acceptance is preceded by a sometimes lengthy internal struggle with their gay feelings. The struggle, or inner conflict, is transformed into words using metaphor, inner speech, expressive phonology, repetition, and detailed imagery...evoking the image of 'the closet' to express these experiences of isolation.' (p. 87)
Some contend that the closet plays a less significant role in late 20th century America and other societies that function around the norm of heterosexuality than it did during earlier decades...They contend that today's American gay and lesbian youth discuss same-sex desire more openly and integrate it more readily into their everyday conversations. (p. 88)
Do you agree? How do you/people you have known talk about this experience? How is it articulated?
For this study, I recruited 40 French gays and lesbians who came from various regional and socio-economic backgrounds and who ranged from 21 to 46 years of age to discuss their coming-out experiences.
French notions of the 'authentic' and 'inauthentic self' and 'bad faith' play evident roles in many articulations. Nadine speaks of an 'inauthentic' individual that stays closed in; Pierre speaks of the shameful, inauthentic self who lives in bad faith; and Gabriel speaks of the hidden or 'unaccepting' self. When prompted, these French gay and lesbian speakers can recognize and make use of the English-based terms 'in' and 'out' that are related to the closet. However, they do not utilize the image of the closet nor do they associate concealment with a specific place. (p. 95)
Jean-Louis's story (p. 96) is strikingly different from the US narratives as this speaker does not consider this moment to be his coming out of 'the closet.' Of course, he clearly associates the statement 'Je suis pédé' with his 'coming out' and he experiences a sense of relief after telling others about his sexual orientation. However, Jean-Louis does not speak about coming out as a period of self-discovery in terms of shame or isolation but in terms of uncovering his 'vraie personnalité' and his need to stop distorting or 'travestir la vérité' ('dressing up the truth'). (p. 97) *read from p. 98
*'Desert of Nothing' (p. 101)
Unlike many of the US-based experiences, Francois's story foregrounds the importance of living a full life and being actively involved in a larger and often non gay-specific social network (friends) throughout the coming-out period. French coming-out narratives involve a feeling of living as a relatively whole person before making any type of declarative statement. Instead of foregrounding themes of the closet, the desert or isolation, speakers like Francois highlight a sense of fulfillment and include desserts and other satisfying experiences. (p. 103)
* Francois again on 104
"An American 'gay' or 'queer' stepped in the sexual identity politics of the United States can be quite perplexed, or even infuriated, by the large number of men cruising in Parisian gay bars who are not gay-identified...Indeed, while in the United States the homosexual/heterosexual binarism has become a primary ontological dichotomy, in France sexual orientation continues to be placed low down on the hierarchy of ontological identifiers, well below nationality, class, gender or profession." (p. 115)
_Denis M. Provencher
Oscar reacts to the term "coming out":
'Faire le coming-out,' it bothers me this American cliche, you know, these kinds of theatrical things, at the same time, I really do not know the US very well, but I have this impression that it's there where everything is dramatized, right, we have the impression that people are always playing roles. (p. 86)
Jean-Louis:
It's an expression that means...but for me no...it's an expression...it would be easier to say 'declare one's homosexuality,' it's easier. It's a bit idiotic, by the way. No...for me...to be 'out,' it's someone who...a homosexual...who openly accepts homosexuality. (p. 86)
In many coming out narratives, 'protagonists exhibit a period of suffering before coming out...self-acceptance is preceded by a sometimes lengthy internal struggle with their gay feelings. The struggle, or inner conflict, is transformed into words using metaphor, inner speech, expressive phonology, repetition, and detailed imagery...evoking the image of 'the closet' to express these experiences of isolation.' (p. 87)
Some contend that the closet plays a less significant role in late 20th century America and other societies that function around the norm of heterosexuality than it did during earlier decades...They contend that today's American gay and lesbian youth discuss same-sex desire more openly and integrate it more readily into their everyday conversations. (p. 88)
Do you agree? How do you/people you have known talk about this experience? How is it articulated?
For this study, I recruited 40 French gays and lesbians who came from various regional and socio-economic backgrounds and who ranged from 21 to 46 years of age to discuss their coming-out experiences.
French notions of the 'authentic' and 'inauthentic self' and 'bad faith' play evident roles in many articulations. Nadine speaks of an 'inauthentic' individual that stays closed in; Pierre speaks of the shameful, inauthentic self who lives in bad faith; and Gabriel speaks of the hidden or 'unaccepting' self. When prompted, these French gay and lesbian speakers can recognize and make use of the English-based terms 'in' and 'out' that are related to the closet. However, they do not utilize the image of the closet nor do they associate concealment with a specific place. (p. 95)
Jean-Louis's story (p. 96) is strikingly different from the US narratives as this speaker does not consider this moment to be his coming out of 'the closet.' Of course, he clearly associates the statement 'Je suis pédé' with his 'coming out' and he experiences a sense of relief after telling others about his sexual orientation. However, Jean-Louis does not speak about coming out as a period of self-discovery in terms of shame or isolation but in terms of uncovering his 'vraie personnalité' and his need to stop distorting or 'travestir la vérité' ('dressing up the truth'). (p. 97) *read from p. 98
*'Desert of Nothing' (p. 101)
Unlike many of the US-based experiences, Francois's story foregrounds the importance of living a full life and being actively involved in a larger and often non gay-specific social network (friends) throughout the coming-out period. French coming-out narratives involve a feeling of living as a relatively whole person before making any type of declarative statement. Instead of foregrounding themes of the closet, the desert or isolation, speakers like Francois highlight a sense of fulfillment and include desserts and other satisfying experiences. (p. 103)
* Francois again on 104
"An American 'gay' or 'queer' stepped in the sexual identity politics of the United States can be quite perplexed, or even infuriated, by the large number of men cruising in Parisian gay bars who are not gay-identified...Indeed, while in the United States the homosexual/heterosexual binarism has become a primary ontological dichotomy, in France sexual orientation continues to be placed low down on the hierarchy of ontological identifiers, well below nationality, class, gender or profession." (p. 115)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Hate Crime
No bail for murder suspect; hate crime charge a possibility
| |
Police say Dwight DeLee shot and killed Moses Cannon, known by friends and family as Latiesha Green. The victim was a transgender person. The reason for the shooting, police say, is because of Cannon's sexuality.
The district attorney's office is now weighing whether or not to charge DeLee with a hate crime, which would carry a loftier sentence.
DeLee was arraigned Monday morning in Syracuse City Court on a charge of second degree Murder. No bail was set and he remains in custody.
A friend told Latiesha and her brother Mark Cannon, 18, to stop by a party at 411 Seymour Street on Friday night. When they pulled up to the police, police say a number of people took issue with their arrival because the brothers because of their sexaulity.
DeLee allegedly walked up to the parked car and began shouting profanities. Police say he then went inside the house and came back out with a 22-caliber rifle.
DeLee fired a single round through the driver’s side window, according to police. The bullet grazed Mark Cannon’s arm and hit Latiesha in the chest.
Mark, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, drove to Arthur Street where an ambulance picked the siblings up and took them to University Hospital. Latiesha was later pronounced dead. Mark was treated and released.
DeLee fled the party after the shooting and police later found him at a home in Liverpool where he was arrested.
Police say DeLee has a history of weapons and drug charges on file.
ME NOT METH
Anti-meth campaign aimed at gay men:
California is spending $11 million to discourage use of the drug, which increases the risk of spreading HIV. (3.25.08)
California drug officials launched an $11-million barrage of billboards, bus wraps, cable TV ads and a website Thursday aimed at discouraging gay men from using methamphetamine, an illegal stimulant linked to risky sexual behavior and the spread of HIV.The drug, commonly known as "crystal" or "tina," has been a popular party drug in gay circles since the 1990s. A statewide survey, also released Thursday, found that crystal meth use was 11 times more common among gay men than in the California population overall. Fifty-five percent of 549 gay and bisexual men surveyed said they had used the drug, compared with 5% of the general population.
Mike Rizzo, manager of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center's crystal meth recovery services, praised the state's campaign, especially the website videos of real people relaying the consequences of using crystal meth. Not only will they appeal to young people, he said, but they portrayed meth use in a way that "is real and relatable and not easily dismissed as being overly alarmist."
The site, http://www.menotmeth.org/en/your/stories, allows users to add their own videos. It also provides links to places to get help.
The Gay & Lesbian Center, along with the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, helped push the Legislature to pass the California Methamphetamine Initiative in 2006. Data from the center's HIV testing program found that nearly one in every three gay or bisexual men who tested positive in the testing program in 2004 used crystal meth -- a threefold increase over 2001.
In the state-sponsored survey, gay men were the only group to cite enhanced sexual arousal as part of drug's appeal.
"Not only can it increase the likelihood of having unprotected sex, but people are also having more sex with more partners and having sex for a longer period of time, increasing the likelihood of infection," said Dr. Michelle Roland, chief of the AIDS office at the state Department of Public Health.
Women and heterosexual men who use meth are also at risk for sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis, she said.
For many women, the drug is seen not as a sexual aid but as "Mom's little helper," according to Renee Zito, director of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
"It helps you lose weight," she said. "It gives you energy. If you are a working mother and juggling everything under the sun, it helps you cope -- initially."
Yet methamphetamine is a factor in about 80% of child neglect and endangerment cases. For all users, the powerfully addictive drug "turns on you down the line," said Zito.
Folsom Street Fair- San Francisco, CA
"People get to the point that they need it so desperately that they're willing to do anything to get the drug," she said. Although the campaign is directed toward gay men, it applies to anyone who uses or is tempted to use meth, Zito said. The campaign "is about loss, really -- of family, friends, their looks, jobs, who they are. It essentially gets down to 'I lost myself.'
Montana also has a campagne to stop meth.
Mike Rizzo, manager of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center's crystal meth recovery services, praised the state's campaign, especially the website videos of real people relaying the consequences of using crystal meth. Not only will they appeal to young people, he said, but they portrayed meth use in a way that "is real and relatable and not easily dismissed as being overly alarmist."
The site, http://www.menotmeth.org/en/your/stories, allows users to add their own videos. It also provides links to places to get help.
The Gay & Lesbian Center, along with the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, helped push the Legislature to pass the California Methamphetamine Initiative in 2006. Data from the center's HIV testing program found that nearly one in every three gay or bisexual men who tested positive in the testing program in 2004 used crystal meth -- a threefold increase over 2001.
In the state-sponsored survey, gay men were the only group to cite enhanced sexual arousal as part of drug's appeal.
"Not only can it increase the likelihood of having unprotected sex, but people are also having more sex with more partners and having sex for a longer period of time, increasing the likelihood of infection," said Dr. Michelle Roland, chief of the AIDS office at the state Department of Public Health.
Women and heterosexual men who use meth are also at risk for sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis, she said.
For many women, the drug is seen not as a sexual aid but as "Mom's little helper," according to Renee Zito, director of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
"It helps you lose weight," she said. "It gives you energy. If you are a working mother and juggling everything under the sun, it helps you cope -- initially."
Yet methamphetamine is a factor in about 80% of child neglect and endangerment cases. For all users, the powerfully addictive drug "turns on you down the line," said Zito.
Folsom Street Fair- San Francisco, CA
"People get to the point that they need it so desperately that they're willing to do anything to get the drug," she said. Although the campaign is directed toward gay men, it applies to anyone who uses or is tempted to use meth, Zito said. The campaign "is about loss, really -- of family, friends, their looks, jobs, who they are. It essentially gets down to 'I lost myself.'
Montana also has a campagne to stop meth.
Sundance and Prop 8
Why is the Sundance Film Festival taking place in the Hate State of Utah, by blogger John Aravosis, was the first to call for a boycott of Sundance. His issues are aimed at the Mormon Church in general, and specificall one donor, Brent Andrus, who apparently owns many Marriott hotels in the state.
The general concensus is that a boycott of Sundance is unlikely. If it does happen, the effect will be minimal.
The general concensus is that a boycott of Sundance is unlikely. If it does happen, the effect will be minimal.
AIDS books for children
A Name on the Quilt : A Story of RemembranceRelated to the NAMES Project, a non-profit organization in which families and friends commemorate loved ones through panels on a national quilt. Lauren, the main character, helps her family make a panel for her Uncle Ron. Deals with grief, rememberance, and also acceptance (Grandpa chooses not to participate in the quilt making)
Too Far Away To Touch
Deals more with the effects of AIDS than causes, but shows Zoe's Uncle Leonard taking pills, losing his hair, and growing tired. In depth discussions of death and dying.
Be a Friend: Children Who Live With HIV Speak
Exactly what it sounds like. First hand accounts of children living with HIV. Drawings and writings. Discussions of death and also ostracism.
Daddy & Me: A Photo Story of Arthur Ashe and his Daughter Camera
Apparently my favorite book about AIDS from when I was younger is now out of print.
From the Amazon.com/Publisher's Weekly description:
"What you will see here is a portrait of Arthur and Camera as they care for each other on bad days and play together as father and daughter on good days," writes Arthur Ashe's widow, Moutoussamy-Ashe, in her introductory note. Anything but sentimental or maudlin, her photographs effectively and affectingly chronicle daily interactions between Camera and her father after he contracted AIDS. In a straightforward, first-person narrative accompanying the pictures, Camera talks about how she helps her father through his "bad" days, and how he does the same for her. As the book comes to a close, she explains how "Daddy got AIDS from a blood transfusion during a heart operation." Her final words ("And one thing's for sure--I love my daddy and my daddy loves me. That is the best medicine and we both agree!") give no indication that Ashe died. As written, the book allows parents to direct their own discussions about AIDS, and reinforces the impression that Camera's special relationship with her father will live forever in her memory.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Rachel Maddow on Palin
Rachel Maddow is an openly gay newscaster for MSNBC. She topped Out magazine's Out100 for 2008, and was also the first openly gay American to to win a Rhodes scholarship.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Chapter 11: The History of a Social Movement
The Pink and the Black: Homosexuals in France Since 1968
_Frederic Martel
In 1984, Foucault died of AIDS at the Hôpital Pitié Salpêtrière in the 13th arrondissement in Paris. Foucault's death can be seen as the founding act in the birth of Aides (the organization). (p. 216)
What organization were both Foucault and his lover Defert active participants in? On whose behalf?
"In the Libération the day after Foucault's death an article ran: 'Foucault is said to have died of AIDS. As if an exceptional intellectual, because he was homosexual - though extremely discreet about it - represented an ideal target for the disease currently in fashion...We are embarrassed by the virulence of this rumor. It is as if Foucault had to die in shame.' This extraordinarily unseemly article shows how difficult it still was to speak of AIDS in 1984: Connotations of 'shame' were still attached to the disease...We will never know whether Foucault was aware of the nature of his illness..." (p. 218)
..."in his journal, seven months before his death, wrote in his journal. 'I know I have AIDS, but I forget, thanks to my hysteria.'" (p. 218)
"In 1984 in France, the diagnosis of AIDS was not being communicated to the patients who were affected by it." (p. 219)
Defert wrote and dispatched the founding letter of Aides, the organization:
"AIDS is a crisis of sexual behavior for the gay community; the majority of the victims it has struck are from this population, whose culture has recently been built around gymnasium values, perpetual youth and health. We have to face and institutionalize our relation to illness, infirmity, and death. Gays have not addressed the moral, social and legal consequences for themselves. Sexual liberation is not the be-all and end-all of our identity. It is urgent to conceptualize our ways of loving until death, something straights institutionalized long ago. I will not go home to Mama to die." (p. 220)
"Despite the foresight, Defert's letter outlining his platform did not inspire enthusiasm. Most of the doctors and lawyers who were contacted did not reply. As a result, only homosexual militants attended the first informal meeting of Aides, which took place in Defert's apartment on October 4, 1984." (p. 221)
"In many respects, the organization represented a group of mourners...What linked these pioneers in the struggle against AIDS in France was their awareness of a state of emergency...The organization immediately chose to move in several directions: it formed a telephone hotline with a recording, distributed brochures and pamphlets, staged debates and public lectures, but also, already, provided a service destined, unfortunately, for a long future: 'aid to the sick.' Everything was set in place in early 1985, with no financial means except gifts from the first volunteers. They juggled their personal telephone lines for the first hotlines. Edelmann offered his apartment on rue Michel-le-Comte, in the Marais, and it virtually became the office of Aides." (p. 223)
..."AIDS specialists were immediately contacted and were relieved to learn of the creation off Aides...: 'We finally had people ready to bring up matters of importance, people who were not hobbled by homosexual militancy...The founders of Aides had the incredible courage to tell their little home truths to their homosexual brothers.'" (p. 223)
In 1985 a bath owner in Paris expressed: "I don't really want to put up condom dispensers or information boards about AIDS. People come to the baths to relax, not to get all upset.
And Aides was met with considerable resistance: ..."We were perceived as a new Protestant moral league, as if we were preventing those who were making money on the backs of gays from continuing to operate their businesses." (p. 224)
..."It was the history, in short, of a disconcerting, never-ending denial." (p. 224)
"Given the context of 1985 and the urgency of the situation, the pioneers in the fight against AIDS in France decided to venture into gay bars, beginning with those whose owners were more receptive...Of a total of more than a hundred gay spots in Paris, however, fewer than ten establishments accepted the Aides prevention information in 1985-87." (p. 225)
BROCHURE, printed by Aides in February 1985: "The vase majority of people infected with AIDS, over 80 percent, are male homosexuals. Caution: AIDS is contagious. AIDS is sexually transmitted." (p. 225)
Resistance in the gay community continued: In Gai Pied, September 1985: "Tobacco causes cancer, we all know that. Have we stopped smoking? Sex causes illness. Must we stop making love? Modern life causes cancer. Should we retire to Ardeche...How can we believe in a medical establishment that discourages us, that announces nothing but catastrophes of contagion, that marches only to the tune of fear and despair?" (p. 227)
"What is the best way to fight an epidemic? Should the model of an American-style coalition be adopted, one based on identity and multiculturalism? Or should it be the universalist and, as necessary, republican model?" (p. 228)
"In France during the 1980's, then, the "AIDS movement" was not established by homosexual militants but rather by homosexuals who were not involved in identity politics. That made all the difference. On the one hand, such an observation allows us to explain the specifically French delay in mobilizing organizations, a delay that, despite the arrival of Aides in 1985, puts France in the next-to-last position on the list of European countries." (p. 231)
"In an atmosphere often marked by the violence of illness and grief, activist from Aides, often HIV-positive themselves, took care of a family of Haitians, then a Zairean drug dealer, a sixty-year-old female prostitute, and a transvestite without identity papers. They passed out condoms in the Verrières woods, an outdoor cruising spot on the outskirts of Paris, or in the Tuileries. Defert's and Edelmann's apartments again served as the organization's offices (later moved to rue de l'Abbé-Groult in Cité Paradis, then to rue de Belleville, and finally to rue du Château-Landon, where the office is today)...Gradually, the Aides hotline was set up, twice a week at first, in one home or another and then in Edelmann's apartment on rue Michel-le-Comte." (p. 233)
"In France, there was probably on history of AIDS before Rock Hudson's death and another after it. The year 1985 seems to have been the time when the illness appeared in the media..." (p. 235)
What was the reaction of the French government to AIDS? In relation to other nations? (p. 235, 236, 237)
During this whole struggle..."homosexuals felt they were being accused, not for their practices, but as homosexuals, for what they were. Thus they could only react by denying and denouncing such a situation...The degree to which homosexuality is socially acceptable is very important in understanding the fear of AIDS." (p. 241)
"Should an AIDS organization turn to professionals, especially the medical establishment, and acquire information...Or should it be 'communitarian' in nature, a mass movement or infected or exposed individuals, a kind of family where one fought for others as much as one for oneself?" (p. 243)
AIDES initiatives today:
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Chapter 10: The Conflagration
The Pink and the Black: Homosexuals in France Since 1968
_Frederic Martel
" 'A cancer that afflicts only homosexuals? No, it's too good to be true, I could die laughing!' Michel Foucault fell of his sofa, contorted by a fit of uncontrollable laughter..." (p. 187)
"The first mention of the 'gay cancer' in the monthly Gai Pied dates from September 1981. It took the form of a short informative article signed by Antoine Perruchot and titled 'Amour à risques' [At-risk love]: 'The American gay community is in an uproar. In the last several weeks, about forty cases of the very rare Kaposi's sarcoma have been reported in the United States. All the patients are queer." (p. 189)
'Since the beginning of the year, not a week has gone by when the mainstream press has not reveled in sensational headlines about a disease that is preying on us poor queers. More virulent than the plague and gangrene combined...Wait and see. In the meantime, live, do not panic. So fucking is dangerous? What about crossing the street? ' [Cluade Lejeune, Gai Pied, April 1982]
'So, as a result of a disease specific to them, queers are now going back on the list they had unfortunately dropped off, that of social scourges.' [Albert Rosse, Gai Pied, June 1982]
"The first phase, denial of the disease or, at the very least, a belief that it was unlikely to come to France, can be easily explained: no one knew how the disease was spread. The virus had not been discovered, nor had the means of transmission..." (p. 190)
"AIDS appeared soon after the homosexual liberation movement...Its initial progression occurred at a time when homosexual lifestyles had become widespread in France: there was organized cruising, there were baths and back rooms in the provinces, and there was the new specialized neighborhood of the Marais in Paris. In many respects, the homosexual 'theater' of the early 1980s was a boon for the new virus. The way AIDS was spread, via networks and relays fed by the high level of sexual promiscuity and the intermingling of partners, set off a chain reaction that grew exponentially. For homosexuals, the conflagration had started." (p. 192)
"Among the once-anonymous figures made famous by the epidemic, Gaetan Dugas will probably remain the international symbol for a certain irresponsibility on the part of gays. A flight attendant with Canadian Airlines, he was the archetype of the modern homosexual of the early 1980s: blond, mustachioed, twenty-nine years old. Every year he accumulated an estimated 250 sexual partners. In June 1980, he learned that the blotches on his body were due to a very rare form of cancer, Karposi's sarcoma. Rapidly informed by doctors that he had contracted the 'gay caner' he agreed to give them the names of seventy-three of his recent lovers. The epidemiological research, conducted by a method similar to police cross-checking, showed that in 1982 at least forty of the 248 cases diagnosed in North America were among former partners of Gaetan. Duly warned, he nevertheless rejected the advice to be careful and to take protective measures, saying the disease, 'I got it; they can get it too!' He died on March 30, 1984. This 'sex kamikaze' was nicknamed 'Patient Zero.' (p. 195)
"In late 1982, twenty-seven cases of AIDS were reported in France: eight of the patients were homosexuals were had spent time in the United States around 1980, and there was no question that they had been infected there. Four others were also homosexual but seem to have been infected in France; the rest were heterosexual and had traveled to the Caribbean (Haiti) or to equatorial Africa. The disease gradually progressed from being the 'gay cancer' to being the '4H' cancer: homosexuals, heroin addicts, Haitians, and hemophiliacs." (p. 195)
"On January 3, 1983, Willy Rozenbaum removed a lymph node from a French homosexual patient who had spent time in New York...Montagnier placed the sample in a culture under a hood at the Institut Pasteur. 'We had decided to do a probe, as we call it...we had an extraordinary stroke of luck because the first probe was the right one. On the fifteenth day, with the initial culture still alive, we detected the presence of weak but significant 'reverse transcriptase' activity." (p. 196)
"Although the causal link between the virus and particular behaviors on the part of homosexuals was virologically false (the virus was not specific to gays), the truth is that this link was epidemiologically well founded (most of the people in France were homosexual)...Militants fell victim to the same identity trap they claimed to be fighting. They confused AIDS, which attacks homosexuals for 'what they do,' with a disease that would attack them for 'what they are.' " (p. 197)
Sound familiar? What does this have to do with our conversations about identity politics/Foucault?
"The Gay Pride Day festivities of 1983 made no reference to AIDS." (p. 197)
"The discovery of the virus led to the distribution of a questionnaire intended to exclude blood donors who belonged to 'at-risk groups' in 1983...It is understandable why homosexuals felt that any administrative action designed to keep them from donating blood - a social act and a civic duty - was 'a threat of the pink star.'" (p. 198)
How did the reaction of French militants to the issue of blood donation differ from that of Swedish and British militants in 1983? (p. 200)
"Failure to implement the 1983 memo on the screening of donors (homosexuals, drug addicts, prisoners), combined with blood drives in prisons, turned out to be directly responsible for the contamination that occurred in France over two years' time." (p. 201)
"In 1984-85, it was confirmed that LAV (the future HIV) was the virus responsible for causing AIDS. In December 1984, a test (called "Elisa") as developed to detect antibodies to the virus, and its distribution began in 1985. These developments changed the way the disease was viewed: on the one hand, condom distribution changed the way the disease was viewed: on the one hand, condom distribution began to be considered a means of protection (1984); on the other hand, anyone could find out whether he had been exposed to the virus. In 1985, the test revealed that there was a phase of seropositivity, a latency period during which the person was infectious but not ill. The epidemiological prospects took on a new dimension: so-called healthy carriers were now renamed 'asymptomatic carriers.' The scope of the tragedy became clearer. Current patients were only the tip of the iceberg: AIDS was truly a pandemic of enormous proportions." (p. 202)
Official spokespeople began to change their tone: "Dr. Lejeune [of Association des Medecins Gais] declared: Sine the number of partners is a risk factor, we must lower that number. Obviously, the virus must be in the blood: let us therefore refrain from donating our blood. Finally, the virus may be in sperm, so we must use condoms...Every aspect of sexuality is affected by AIDS. Admitting for the first time that the risk of contracting the virus increased with the number of sexual partners, the Association des Medecins Gais chose to depart from its earlier line. September 1984 marked a turning point." (p. 203)
"Their initial denial had made AIDS an invention of American puritanism; now these writers denied that the virus had reached epidemic (pandemic) proportions: a new phase; a new form of denial." (p. 204)
In response to people's assertions that there was probably no one left in the San Francisco bathhouses, Foucault (in 1983) reportedly said, "Don't kid yourself. There have never been so many people in the baths, and it's really extraordinary. This threat hanging over everyone has created a new complicity, a new tenderness, a new solidarity. Before, you hardly exchanged a word; now, everyone talks. Everyone knows precisely why he's there." (p. 205)
"While the condom was emerging as the only effective measure of prevention, nothing was more striking than the homosexual community's delay in accepting the idea. The government shared this reticence about the subject: it was not until 1987 that condom advertising was authorized." (p. 206)
..."For us, using a condom and reducing the number of partners was a return to a bygone era, a crime against love." (p. 206)
"In the first results of the testing conducted by blood banks after the 1985 Fabius decree, the rate of infection among blood donors was extremely high - the highest rate in Europe...This was the epicenter of blood contamination...every week between March and July 1985, between fifty and one hundred people who received tranfusions were infected...and of slightly more than 3,000 hemophiliacs living in France, nearly 50 percent were infected by the virus between 1981 and October, 1985." (p. 207, 212)
"It is possible to see the history of homosexuals' mobilizations against AIDS between 1981 and 1985 as an almost uninterrupted series of misunderstandings, delays, and self-imposed blindness. The 'flighty' way in which homosexual leaders treated the AIDS problem took various and contradictory forms, from denying that the disease existed to denying its importance, from refusing to take preventative measures to refusing to be tested for the virus." (p. 207)
In a published letter from Charles A. in Homophonies (1983), a gay doctor in Nantes says: "Even though I'm a doctor, I am proud to know almost nothing about the 'gay cancer.' The glut of information about a disease I will probably never see in my office makes me sick." (p. 208)
"Homosexual denial is an important fact in the history of the epidemic in France...In 1982-83, France, unlike Sweden and Great Britain, had no homosexual community: the only bond was sexual; it was a community of desire." (p. 209)
What does this have to do with our discussion of identity politics? How are identity politics useful in combatting something like AIDS?
Foucault's lover Daniel Defert: "I have never been a militant of homosexual identity because identity politics is not my style."
_Frederic Martel
" 'A cancer that afflicts only homosexuals? No, it's too good to be true, I could die laughing!' Michel Foucault fell of his sofa, contorted by a fit of uncontrollable laughter..." (p. 187)
"The first mention of the 'gay cancer' in the monthly Gai Pied dates from September 1981. It took the form of a short informative article signed by Antoine Perruchot and titled 'Amour à risques' [At-risk love]: 'The American gay community is in an uproar. In the last several weeks, about forty cases of the very rare Kaposi's sarcoma have been reported in the United States. All the patients are queer." (p. 189)
'Since the beginning of the year, not a week has gone by when the mainstream press has not reveled in sensational headlines about a disease that is preying on us poor queers. More virulent than the plague and gangrene combined...Wait and see. In the meantime, live, do not panic. So fucking is dangerous? What about crossing the street? ' [Cluade Lejeune, Gai Pied, April 1982]
'So, as a result of a disease specific to them, queers are now going back on the list they had unfortunately dropped off, that of social scourges.' [Albert Rosse, Gai Pied, June 1982]
"The first phase, denial of the disease or, at the very least, a belief that it was unlikely to come to France, can be easily explained: no one knew how the disease was spread. The virus had not been discovered, nor had the means of transmission..." (p. 190)
"AIDS appeared soon after the homosexual liberation movement...Its initial progression occurred at a time when homosexual lifestyles had become widespread in France: there was organized cruising, there were baths and back rooms in the provinces, and there was the new specialized neighborhood of the Marais in Paris. In many respects, the homosexual 'theater' of the early 1980s was a boon for the new virus. The way AIDS was spread, via networks and relays fed by the high level of sexual promiscuity and the intermingling of partners, set off a chain reaction that grew exponentially. For homosexuals, the conflagration had started." (p. 192)
"Among the once-anonymous figures made famous by the epidemic, Gaetan Dugas will probably remain the international symbol for a certain irresponsibility on the part of gays. A flight attendant with Canadian Airlines, he was the archetype of the modern homosexual of the early 1980s: blond, mustachioed, twenty-nine years old. Every year he accumulated an estimated 250 sexual partners. In June 1980, he learned that the blotches on his body were due to a very rare form of cancer, Karposi's sarcoma. Rapidly informed by doctors that he had contracted the 'gay caner' he agreed to give them the names of seventy-three of his recent lovers. The epidemiological research, conducted by a method similar to police cross-checking, showed that in 1982 at least forty of the 248 cases diagnosed in North America were among former partners of Gaetan. Duly warned, he nevertheless rejected the advice to be careful and to take protective measures, saying the disease, 'I got it; they can get it too!' He died on March 30, 1984. This 'sex kamikaze' was nicknamed 'Patient Zero.' (p. 195)
"In late 1982, twenty-seven cases of AIDS were reported in France: eight of the patients were homosexuals were had spent time in the United States around 1980, and there was no question that they had been infected there. Four others were also homosexual but seem to have been infected in France; the rest were heterosexual and had traveled to the Caribbean (Haiti) or to equatorial Africa. The disease gradually progressed from being the 'gay cancer' to being the '4H' cancer: homosexuals, heroin addicts, Haitians, and hemophiliacs." (p. 195)
"On January 3, 1983, Willy Rozenbaum removed a lymph node from a French homosexual patient who had spent time in New York...Montagnier placed the sample in a culture under a hood at the Institut Pasteur. 'We had decided to do a probe, as we call it...we had an extraordinary stroke of luck because the first probe was the right one. On the fifteenth day, with the initial culture still alive, we detected the presence of weak but significant 'reverse transcriptase' activity." (p. 196)
"Although the causal link between the virus and particular behaviors on the part of homosexuals was virologically false (the virus was not specific to gays), the truth is that this link was epidemiologically well founded (most of the people in France were homosexual)...Militants fell victim to the same identity trap they claimed to be fighting. They confused AIDS, which attacks homosexuals for 'what they do,' with a disease that would attack them for 'what they are.' " (p. 197)
Sound familiar? What does this have to do with our conversations about identity politics/Foucault?
"The Gay Pride Day festivities of 1983 made no reference to AIDS." (p. 197)
"The discovery of the virus led to the distribution of a questionnaire intended to exclude blood donors who belonged to 'at-risk groups' in 1983...It is understandable why homosexuals felt that any administrative action designed to keep them from donating blood - a social act and a civic duty - was 'a threat of the pink star.'" (p. 198)
How did the reaction of French militants to the issue of blood donation differ from that of Swedish and British militants in 1983? (p. 200)
"Failure to implement the 1983 memo on the screening of donors (homosexuals, drug addicts, prisoners), combined with blood drives in prisons, turned out to be directly responsible for the contamination that occurred in France over two years' time." (p. 201)
"In 1984-85, it was confirmed that LAV (the future HIV) was the virus responsible for causing AIDS. In December 1984, a test (called "Elisa") as developed to detect antibodies to the virus, and its distribution began in 1985. These developments changed the way the disease was viewed: on the one hand, condom distribution changed the way the disease was viewed: on the one hand, condom distribution began to be considered a means of protection (1984); on the other hand, anyone could find out whether he had been exposed to the virus. In 1985, the test revealed that there was a phase of seropositivity, a latency period during which the person was infectious but not ill. The epidemiological prospects took on a new dimension: so-called healthy carriers were now renamed 'asymptomatic carriers.' The scope of the tragedy became clearer. Current patients were only the tip of the iceberg: AIDS was truly a pandemic of enormous proportions." (p. 202)
Official spokespeople began to change their tone: "Dr. Lejeune [of Association des Medecins Gais] declared: Sine the number of partners is a risk factor, we must lower that number. Obviously, the virus must be in the blood: let us therefore refrain from donating our blood. Finally, the virus may be in sperm, so we must use condoms...Every aspect of sexuality is affected by AIDS. Admitting for the first time that the risk of contracting the virus increased with the number of sexual partners, the Association des Medecins Gais chose to depart from its earlier line. September 1984 marked a turning point." (p. 203)
"Their initial denial had made AIDS an invention of American puritanism; now these writers denied that the virus had reached epidemic (pandemic) proportions: a new phase; a new form of denial." (p. 204)
In response to people's assertions that there was probably no one left in the San Francisco bathhouses, Foucault (in 1983) reportedly said, "Don't kid yourself. There have never been so many people in the baths, and it's really extraordinary. This threat hanging over everyone has created a new complicity, a new tenderness, a new solidarity. Before, you hardly exchanged a word; now, everyone talks. Everyone knows precisely why he's there." (p. 205)
"While the condom was emerging as the only effective measure of prevention, nothing was more striking than the homosexual community's delay in accepting the idea. The government shared this reticence about the subject: it was not until 1987 that condom advertising was authorized." (p. 206)
..."For us, using a condom and reducing the number of partners was a return to a bygone era, a crime against love." (p. 206)
"In the first results of the testing conducted by blood banks after the 1985 Fabius decree, the rate of infection among blood donors was extremely high - the highest rate in Europe...This was the epicenter of blood contamination...every week between March and July 1985, between fifty and one hundred people who received tranfusions were infected...and of slightly more than 3,000 hemophiliacs living in France, nearly 50 percent were infected by the virus between 1981 and October, 1985." (p. 207, 212)
"It is possible to see the history of homosexuals' mobilizations against AIDS between 1981 and 1985 as an almost uninterrupted series of misunderstandings, delays, and self-imposed blindness. The 'flighty' way in which homosexual leaders treated the AIDS problem took various and contradictory forms, from denying that the disease existed to denying its importance, from refusing to take preventative measures to refusing to be tested for the virus." (p. 207)
In a published letter from Charles A. in Homophonies (1983), a gay doctor in Nantes says: "Even though I'm a doctor, I am proud to know almost nothing about the 'gay cancer.' The glut of information about a disease I will probably never see in my office makes me sick." (p. 208)
"Homosexual denial is an important fact in the history of the epidemic in France...In 1982-83, France, unlike Sweden and Great Britain, had no homosexual community: the only bond was sexual; it was a community of desire." (p. 209)
What does this have to do with our discussion of identity politics? How are identity politics useful in combatting something like AIDS?
Foucault's lover Daniel Defert: "I have never been a militant of homosexual identity because identity politics is not my style."
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
PROPOSITION 8
if you are from California add yourself to this list...
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/seg5130/
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/seg5130/
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Proposition 8
I tried to collect several types of viewpoints on what happened today with Proposition 8:
The Advocate
"Prop. 8 Still Ahead with 95.4% of Precincts Reporting - And the Suits Begin"
Feministing
"Ballot results: Pro-choice, anti-gay"
The New York Times
"California Appears Likely to Ban Gay Marriage"
The LA Times
California voters approve Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages
Pam's House Blend
Ballot initiatives provide a wake up call to the LGBT community about race
I tried reading conservative blogs to get a balanced opinion on the topic, but they're so full of Obama hate (and McCain hate!) today that no one is talking about Proposition 8 in a positive way, at least that I could find.
The Advocate
"Prop. 8 Still Ahead with 95.4% of Precincts Reporting - And the Suits Begin"
The first lawsuit to come out of what would appear to be a win by Yes on 8 will be announced at a press conference later today. Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, the first same-sex couple to be married in Los Angeles County last June, will file suit via. their lawyer Gloria Allred. The new lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
Feministing
"Ballot results: Pro-choice, anti-gay"
Proposition 8 in California: Passed. This is such a crushing loss. I went to bed last night before the final results were in, and woke up to the news that the people of California actually approved the gay marriage ban. So devastating.
The New York Times
"California Appears Likely to Ban Gay Marriage"
But the decision in California, a trend-setter in so many arenas, was seen by opponents and advocates as an important test of the tolerance for gay marriage.
A total of $73 million was spent in the race, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue, resulting in incessant television and radio commercials from both sides. Advocates of the ban played up their belief children could be taught about gay marriage in schools and opponents likened approval of the measure to denying fundamental civil rights.
The LA Times
California voters approve Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said....
"This is the biggest civil rights struggle for our movement in decades. . . ." said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese, speaking from a Proposition 8 gathering at a brewery in the nation's capital. "The outcome weighs incredibly heavily on the minds of every single person in the room."
Pam's House Blend
Ballot initiatives provide a wake up call to the LGBT community about race
And now I feel that a giant snowball of blame game is about to roll over and crush me on this front. Who voted for Yes on 8 is clear now, as exit polls show 70% of blacks, (with black women at 74%) voted for the amendment. That's about 20 points higher than any other racial group. But the blame needs to be put into perspective - blacks represent only 6.2% of California's population and they were about 10% of those who voted...
I've been blogging for years about the need to discuss race in regards to LGBT issues. I hope that this is now the wakeup call for our "professional gays" out there who represent us to come out of their comfort zones and help bridge this concrete education gap. The belief that white=gay is big part of the problem, and as long as black LGBTs are invisible in their own communities and there is a dearth of color in the public face of LGBT leadership, the socially conservative black community can remain in denial that I exist as a black lesbian.
I tried reading conservative blogs to get a balanced opinion on the topic, but they're so full of Obama hate (and McCain hate!) today that no one is talking about Proposition 8 in a positive way, at least that I could find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
