All day long, something didn’t sit right with me about the last two days’ worth of posts. At first I figured it was content, as I’m notorious in my circles for being my own worst critic when it comes to writing (or anything else). However, reading a post from a fellow TU blogger made me realize what it is.

For all my complaints and self-deprecating observations, I have it pretty good. Being a straight male is certainly not without its benefits in a country that has made great strides towards equal rights in race and gender over the past several decades, but has lagged when it comes to extending the same courtesy to sexual orientation.

Gay rights are a tricky subject for a lot of us. It’s so easy to look back and be appalled at the blatant racism that our ancestors either had to deal with or doled out. It’s a lot harder, though, to do so ourselves in our modern context. It’s easy to express outrage from a distance or through the veil of a hundred years; but a lot harder to take a stand on such matters with our friends and family.

Unfortunately, too many of us are willing to excuse the discrimination and hostility our brothers and sisters face. Much of it is due to homophobia’s roots in many traditional religious observances and texts. Although we can argue context and intent, we cannot deny its presence. This is not to say that religion is a detriment or irreconcilable with accepting homosexuals as deserving of equal rights and legal protections, but we need to have a full understanding of what we’re up against.

So for all my gripes as it pertains to dating, I need to remember that none of them involve being discriminated against, scorned, or physically attacked for my pursuit of the opposite sex. I owe it to all the gay men and women to acknowledge this difficult fact. Especially those  whose friendship and company have inspired confidence and provided inspiration and support in my writing, acting, and other ventures.

I won’t pretend to know the gay experience, and I won’t feign being an activist. There are far too many brave and dedicated people doing great things for me to be that brazenly insincere. Honestly, in looking at some of the reactions other bloggers have received in the past, I must ashamedly admit that I almost didn’t even publish this post.

And that’s what was bothering me. Not that I’m complaining or making observations when others have it worse off; if we adhered to such a silly rule, all life and art as we know it would come to a standstill. However, there was a story this week that made national headlines concurrent to my blog posts, and it’s deserving of our attention in light of what we’re discussing.

Which brings us to the post I mentioned earlier. It was from one of my favorite bloggers, Libby Post, who gave us an update on the Constance McMillen situation. A federal court has ruled that due to the fact that she has been an admitted and open homosexual since the 8th Grade, her school could not under any circumstances deny her the right to bring her significant other of the same sex to the prom. The post, which includes text from the court’s decision, is here.

To nitpick: I’m not one hundred percent comfortable with the language. It rules in favor of free speech, as in making a statement. However, Constance McMillen wasn’t trying to make a statement. A proud declaration, maybe, but that’s different. A statement or free speech implies a simple protest.It’s reminiscent of a point my friend Ed once made about the word “tolerance” as it pertains to its use in things like racial sensitivity training. To say that you tolerate something isn’t to say that you embrace it. You tolerate the existence of a lot of things you actively hate and dislike; to truly change minds and attitudes, it takes more than tolerance.

Constance was simply trying to be herself. Saying that her being prohibited to take her girlfriend to prom is not a violation of her free speech, it’s a violation of her very nature. It doesn’t merely take away her opportunity to express an opinion or belief, it strips her of her dignity and basic human rights.

The wording used in Constitutional law notwithstanding, it’s  still a step in the right direction. Constance gets to take her date to the prom and be recognized by her school and her peers as something she’s always wanted to be – a teenager and a human being.

Congratulations, Constance, and thank you Libby for putting things in perspective.

Tagged with:
 

11 Responses to Dating Week: Keeping it in Perspective, Courtesy Constance McMillen

  1. KatieB. says:

    I saw Constance on Ellen last week, and it depressed me how little support she has received from her classmates. All she wanted was the prom experience that she had been dreaming about since she was younger – to go with a date that she enjoyed being with and have a good time. I’m glad to hear that she will be able to do so, though I do agree with you about the problem with the language of the decision.

    I have always had a problem with the term ‘tolerance’. We should respect each other, no matter what our differences are. I had hoped the younger generations would be learning to embrace these differences and stand up for each other, but Constance’s story shows that this is, sadly, not necessarily the case. Of course, there was a lot of support throughout the country for her, but it would have been nice if her classmates could have stood with her instead of just getting angry that their prom might be cancelled.

  2. Steve says:

    The worst was when the ultra-conservatives in Oklahoma opted out of new legislation against hate crimes, saying that it limited free speech. At this point, they’ve just become the straight Ku Klux Klan. I can see no difference between them and the hooded jackasses who complain when people rain on their prejudice parades. Here’s the news article. Oh, and apparently these crusaders for God have stopped comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and have moved on to associating them with necrophiliacs. Gee, I wonder what brought this on.

    http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=103411

  3. smmarkfan says:

    You cannot compare the gay struggle to the black struggle in America. You just can’t, there is no comparison.
    Blacks protested and marched to attain the SAME rights as their white brethren. Gays are protesting for SPECIAL rights.
    The Itawamba County School District was forced into this decision as the only option available to them to maintain order and decorum in school sponsored events. The rule is gender-appropriate dress, no same-sex dates. This rule applies equally to all students, not just a certain group. And it’s a good rule, too. It reflects a society based on natural law, the ultimate law of the land.
    It is wrong and inappropriate to attempt to bring this particular fight to our public schools. They have enough to worry about already.

  4. There are few greater concerns for our public schools than the rights of students to go knowing that they are free from hate, prejudice, and discrimination.

    As for the crux of your argument: “Blacks protested and marched to attain the SAME rights as their white brethren. Gays are protesting for SPECIAL rights. … The rule is gender-appropriate dress, no same-sex dates. This rule applies equally to all students, not just a certain group.”

    Firstly, there’s no such thing as “special rights.” Rights are inherent. What you might mean to say is that they want priveleges, except the manner in which you constructed your argument says otherwise.

    What I’m reading from your reply is that because the rule only discriminates against homosexual lifestyles, it’s not denying them the same rights afforded heterosexuals. Yet, the limitations placed on dress and more importantly prom dates is discriminatory against homosexuals. That’s like saying segregation wasn’t discriminatory because it applied to all races. Or that any provision saying only people with white skin can old land isn’t discriminatory, because it’s a policy that applies to everyone.

    If you don’t think homosexuals are deserving of equal rights or you think homosexuality is wrong, just say so. Don’t church it up with jargon and language that’s so convoluted it contradicts itself, and if you’re going to agree with a discriminatory practice, at the very least you should own up to it.

  5. Steve says:

    Property qualifications, pre-election registration, residency requirements, and literacy tests for voters following the Civil War ostensibly applied to all people too. But they were undeniably designed to discriminate against black people. There’s your comparison. The truth is that while society has actually evolved to the point where a greater degree of racial and cultural sensitivity exists, prejudice and discrimination haven’t evolved along with it. For the most part, it’s the same old outdated arguments in defense of it…and yet bigots are still completely baffled whenever they’re called on their BS. What was subtle discrimination in the 1800’s ain’t exactly subtle now.

  6. disgusted says:

    “Blacks protested and marched to attain the SAME rights as their white brethren. Gays are protesting for SPECIAL rights.”

    There is a special place in hell for this brand of ignorance. Grow up, wake up and do a little research into what “human rights” actually entail. Globally and intrinsically. You might be surprised.

  7. ema says:

    smmarkfan, a history lesson is in order. Do you realize that the arguments you use above to discriminate against same-sex couples are the very same ones that bigots used (and still use) to discriminate against women people of color?

    According to the race-based bigots, separating the whites and blacks (and brows/yellows/reds) was the natural order of things. It was “race appropriate”, God’s law, and the law of the land – until we came to our collective senses and ended legal protection for this idiocy.

    Do you understand that those who fought school integration in the 1960’s used the same language that you use now to justify your apparent hatred towards the GLBT community? By making posts like yours above, you are proclaiming yourself to be nothing less than a bigot, the same as all the other cowards who came before you. It’s just that the target of your hatred has shifted.

  8. Ada says:

    Thank you for taking a stand for equality. I especially liked this part:

    “It’s so easy to look back and be appalled at the blatant racism that our ancestors either had to deal with or doled out. It’s a lot harder, though, to do so ourselves in our modern context. It’s easy to express outrage from a distance or through the veil of a hundred years; but a lot harder to take a stand on such matters…”

    Too true! Too true! So sad that so many people don’t realize THIS is the rights struggle of our generation, and though they may look back in disgust at the racism of the past, their stance on THIS issue reveals where they would have stood, had they lived back then, had they been in the majority. Truly sad.

    The part I didn’t understand was this:
    “I won’t pretend to know the gay experience, and I won’t feign being an activist. There are far too many brave and dedicated people doing great things for me to be that brazenly insincere.”

    Come on, go ahead and be brazen. Speak up. Let’s hear it. We need ALL the straight allies we can get and ya’ll are being MUCH too quiet! Waaay too quiet. Where are you all? Part of the successful strategy of our opponents is framing this as an issue for gays only, depicting gays as a vocal and radical minority. Straight allies speaking up loudly, brazenly, openly for our full equality will break this stupid framing of the issue. So speak the hell up. When good people sit back and do nothing and so on… Anyway, Thank you for your comments and thank you for starting by doing something.

  9. Libby Post says:

    Kevin–
    Thanks for your kind words and thanks to the majority of your commenters for their support.
    –Libby Post

  10. Robert says:

    “I saw Constance on Ellen last week, and it depressed me how little support she has received from her classmates …”

    Interesting. After Ms. McMillen was discriminated against by her school board’s homophobic prom policy and restrictive dress code,
    did she approach the student council for help? Did she contact the students on the prom committee for help? Did she contact ANY of her fellow students – or simply launched a legal/media campaign while treating her peers as cardboard cut-outs? It must have been disconcerting, (to say the least!), to have one’s senior prom become the subject of national talk shows, et.al., have cameras shoved into your face while going to school and then have to live in a polarized community and decide between a) a discriminatory prom or b) a media circus prom, or c) don’t go to either. IMHO, Ms. McMillen is more concerned about herself than her classmates!

    When you expect people to support you, insisting for them to choose sides ex post facto is at least insensitive, and at worst cynical and manipulative. If faced with the same choice, and the same chronological sequence of events, I’d probably take my prom money, donate it to a worthy charity and tell both sides to shove off.

  11. Ellie says:

    After reading smmarkfan’s comment, I don’t give a durn if a queer lifestyle is embraced. I certainly don’t embrace the homophobic comments he just made.

    But I tolerate them. Because this country allows you the right to remain uneducated. I don’t embrace this lifestyle, but I tolerate. I expect the same when I kiss a girl.

Leave a Reply to Ellie Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>