 |
|
|
All the News that's Gay to Print Trivia Game? Or Perverts?
How else to explain James Dale, Steve May and Billy Bean as front page stories? More on Billy and lots on Amelie Mauresmo in Sports? James Dale, again, (I didn't say they had a lot of imagination) in the Sunday Magazine? Gay couples in Real Estate and Home? AIDS in Science? Editorials? Letters to the editor? Op-ed pieces? Arts, of course, ad nauseum. The newsroom must be a riot these days as reporters jump up to shout, "Hey, here's another one!" But seriously...it is an impressive run, and the writing is definitely more sophisticated than it once was, while still not uniformly good. The vast overrepresentation of white men in these stories, particularly the front page ones, is discouraging and infuriating. Which brings me to my nomination for the Times booby prize (if that isn't somehow an offensive reference).
Hey, Metro, the Commissioner "allowed" that only as a negotiated settlement of a suit brought by the Gay Officers' Action League against the department. You also neglected to mention the NYPD's vicious treatment of gay/AIDS demonstrators for the last dozen years, particularly the cops' violent assault on the Matthew Shepard march last October. But perhaps the most egregious example of current Metro homophobia was the unbelievable piece "A Treat for Women: Cheering Women." Under a big picture of a couple of dozen very obvious lesbians in a well-known lesbian bar, Rubyfruit, the idiotic Barbara Stewart writes a lengthy piece about "women" watching professional women's basketball in a bar together and NEVER, I swear, NEVER uses the word "lesbian," NEVER makes any reference to what these women have in common, NEVER discusses why they might particularly enjoy women's basketball. I had to read it twice to make completely sure I hadn't missed something. Actually, on second reading I did find a few clues. "A few had brought newcomers to the game, and were explaining the fine points." Oh, I see. Or how about "Sharon, the insurance adjustor, who spoke on condition that her last name was not used..." Uh-huh. Maybe this one was a giveaway: "A lone male...seemed to be the only spectator startled by the roughness of the female professionals. [I assume we're talking about the ones on the TV screen.] Ernesto Cano, a Fort Lauderdale hairdresser, expressed dismay at the pushiness and competitiveness of players. 'I've never seen this side of women before,' he said." Oh, come on, Ernesto. You're a hairdresser!
Anyway, the editorial compared May to Rosa Parks and gave him credit for humanizing gay people and for talking about his "family," meaning him and his lover. Several days later, there was a responding letter from George W. Dent Jr., law professor, Case Western University. (How do these people get jobs like that?) George W. said the editorial "ignores the social significance of the legal recognition of marriage. Parents are best suited to raise children, and marriage is the best arrangement for parents to perform this essential task." Oh really? What's your proof of any of that? "To legally validate partnerships," Junior continues, "that by their very nature cannot conceive children would dilute respect for marriage as an institution for raising children. Worse, it would dishonor traditional marriage by equating it with behavior that has been condemned by Western society for thousands of years." I have to say I am breathless with horror at the innumerable lies and hateful, disgusting bigotry in this letter. And I have two points to make. The first is that we had better pay very serious attention to what this guy has to say, because, as far as we've come, this kind of thinking is still epidemic and still controls most public policy. They still think we are disgusting, sinful perverts who are polluting the human race. When I started to write this column, I thought I was going to go through these arguments and dissect them, but I can't do it. Aside from lack of room, it's just too depressing. My other point is to question why The New York Times would print this letter. Would they print a similarly racist letter? Well, they certainly print anti-affirmative action letters and anti-welfare letters and anti-immigration letters, so I guess they do. But somehow I don't think they would let anyone get quite so down and dirty as to question the worth to humanity of any other particular group of people. That might be a little naive, but still. It seems strange to read all the gay p.r. in the paper and then see this dehumanization in the Letters. But rather than end on this uncomfortably depressing note, I'll retreat to a humorous kicker. What I'm really waiting for is the return of Stuart Elliott to the Advertising column. I want him to write about Exxon teaming up with Siegfried and Roy on a "Save the Wild Tigers" campaign. I kid you not. I saw the ad. |
Eagle Scout James Dale's case against the Boy Scouts of America is just one of the gay-themed stories to make the pages of The Times . 
Arizona State Representative Steve May 
© 1997-99 BEI