A Stitch in Haste

Here are three totally unrelated examples of creative anti-gay bigotry to show how subtle, or not so subtle, it can sometimes be.

---

ITEM: How do you measure a life? Or a death?

Rejecting an emotional videotaped plea from a lesbian police lieutenant on the verge of death, Ocean County [New Jersey] freeholders declined once again on Wednesday to approve a resolution that would let county employees pass on their pension benefits to domestic partners.

For more than a year, the freeholders have repeatedly refused to consider the resolution, and their opposition has become increasingly controversial over the past few months.
...
Freeholder John C. Bartlett Jr. said the cost would be too high. Freeholder John P. Kelly, denying that Lieutenant Hester's sexual orientation was an issue — over shouts of derision from the audience — said the domestic partnership law was unfair because it did not let siblings or other relatives not married to each other share benefits when they lived together. But members of the crowd, holding signs declaring "Don't Let Laurel Hester Die Like This," seemed to find the argument disingenuous; several people chanted, "You have the power, you have the power."

MY TAKE: They may have the power, but power corrupts. And bigotry corrupts absolutely. I don't know which is worse, the idea that "it costs too much" and "a lifelong same-sex partner is more like a sibling than a heterosexual spouse" are considered legitimate arguments, or the alternative explanation — that the freeholders are simply insulting our intelligence. Shame on them regardless.

UPDATE: The public outrage seems to have worked and the freeholders now appear set to grant benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

---

ITEM: What is the message of Brokeback Mountain?

If Brokeback Mountain had really been a love story between two gay men, it would have been much shorter. Both the cowboys, after discovering their sexual attraction to each other, would have simply come out of the closet, moved to San Francisco, opened a boutique that specialized in boots and stirrups and other leather gear, and would have lived happily ever after. The poignancy of their story lies precisely in the fact that neither of the two heroes can escape by this route. It is completely shut off for them. That is the reason Brokeback Mountain looms so expressively throughout the movie — it is the only place where they can love each other and still remain men in their own eyes.

MY TAKE: That is way too much overthinking — the mountain is more than "the only place where they can love each other and still remain men in their own eyes." It is the only place where they can love each other and stay alive. Brokeback Mountain is set in Wyoming. Gays were being slaughtered in Wyoming long after the pre-gay-rights period covered by BBM. In Wyoming, then and even now, to stay in the closet and being forced into a sham straight life is often not merely a matter of staying macho, it's sometimes a matter of life and death.

---

ITEM: Nothing brings out the "gay lifestyle" better than the "prison lifestyle" --

A bitterly disputed, government-sponsored study has concluded that rape and sexual assault behind bars may be rampant in movies and books but are rare in real life.

When inmates have sex, it is usually by choice, and often engaged in as a way to win protection or privileges, said Mark Fleisher, a cultural anthropologist who specializes in prisons and crime at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
...
"Prison rape worldview doesn't interpret sexual pressure as coercion," he wrote. "Rather, sexual pressure ushers, guides or shepherds the process of sexual awakening."

MY TAKE: In other words, men who have sex with men in prison must of course be repressed gays — not violent heterosexual sociopaths — since straight males, even violent straight males, would never rape other male prisoners. Right? Normal (i.e., heterosexual) men only rape women; male-on-male rape is just another form of homosexual conduct (i.e., homosexual deviancy). Right? (Via CrimProf Blog.)

(Cross-posted at Spectrum Bloggers.)

"Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

--Senator Orrin Hatch, responding to a remark from Senator Ted Kennedy, equating a vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment with "writing bigotry into the Constitution."

First of all, it wasn't over half; the vote was 49-48 (an unequivocally humiliating defeat for the bigots, who had hoped for a clear majority of the 100 senators).

But more importantly, I don't personally think (nor do I believe that Ted Kennedy personally thinks) that "over half" less than half of the United States Senate "is a crew of bigots."

They are a crew of hack politicians who pander to a crew of bigots.

I abstain from voting on which is worse.

Now about Hatch's flag-burning amendment...

...There's a land that I'm scared of, hence I will just fly by:

"We came here in search of our dreams, my wife always wanted a bed and breakfast and I always wanted a restaurant," says California native J.R. Knight.

But recently their dream has turned into a nightmare, all because of a flag they're flying outside. "It's a rainbow flag — to some people it means friendship to some people it means gay pride," says Knight. But for Knight, it was just a souvenir from his 12-year-old son [from a "Wizard of Oz" museum].
...
Local resident, Keith Klassen says the flag is a slap in the face to the conservative community of Meade [Kansas]. “To me it's just like running up a Nazi flag in a Jewish neighborhood.

Of course, the fact that it was gays, not conservatives, who were sent to the concentration camps alongside Jews is a pesky little irrelevancy for the uptight upright citizens of Meade.*

The Knight's bed-and-breakfast is now foundering, as a local newspaper and radio station have shown their "conservative principles" by trying to drive out the family. Because those who are Friends of Dorothy fans of The Wizard of Oz are, apparently, now a core constituency of The Others Who Are Ruining America™.

I'm not sure this was the intended interpretation of: "The wind began to switch, the house to pitch, and suddenly the hinges started to unhitch..." Go figure.

(Via Konagod by way of Pam's House Blend. More thoughts at Hothouse.)

*And let's also not forget that, when the camps were liberated, many homosexual detainees were not freed, but simply transfered to civilian jails by the Allied forces.

I've been blogging long enough, reading enough news stories, commentaries and counter-commentaries, to have developed a certain clinical immunity from the more obnoxious examples of anti-gay bigotry. Stated differently, I don't get disgusted very easily anymore.

But this disgusts me:

A [Minneapolis] bus driver who complained about a gay-themed ad got official permission not to drive any bus that carries that ad, according to an internal memo confirmed Tuesday by Metro Transit.

Transit authorities call it a reasonable accommodation to the driver's religious beliefs.

Keep in mind that I'm not disgusted by the bigot himself — barbarians like this are all too common. My disgust is directed solely at the public bus company that catered to this pompous bigotry, under the guise of — give me a break — making a "reasonable accommodation."

I beg to differ. Surrendering to anti-gay animus is never reasonable. The reasonable accommodation is to insist that employees either do their jobs or quit.

A political belief, such as favoring second-class citizenship for gays, is not a religious belief. Reasonable accommodations apply to worship, not politics and certainly not to bigotry in the workplace. Not requiring Jews to work on Saturday is a reasonable accommodation — it concerns worship. Allowing a Sikh to wear his dastaar is a reasonable accommodation — it concerns piety. Allowing a Christian to read his Bible in the cafeteria during his lunch break is a reasonable accommodation — it concerns faith.

Antipathy toward gays is not a component of religious worship, any more than is racism or xenophobia. It is a political viewpoint that happens to be embraced by certain (primitive) faiths. There's a difference. And political viewpoints are never entitled to any "reasonable accommodation" except the freedom to quit.

Now consider the analogies: Would a Palestinian be exempt from driving any bus with Anti-Defamation League ads? A Catholic and ads from Planned Parenthood? An atheist and ads for the local parochial school?

And what of the non-religious iterations? A Muslim refusing to drive a bus with ads for alcohol or banks? A skinhead driver and ads from the NAACP? A Democrat and ads for Rush Limbaugh? A gay and ads for an ex-gay ministry?

This decision was so outrageous, so contemptible, that — get this — even the driver's union is opposed to it:

"Our union tries to represent all diversity — whether it be religion, cultural, race, sexual orientation, any of that," [the local union president] said. "And if you start saying this or that ad is inappropriate, you're offending other people, and that can create a difficult environment for people to work in.

Stated in a less mushy, warm-fuzzy-feeling, collectivist way: workers ought to just show up and shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. A bus company is not a church pew or a town hall meeting.

Don't be surprised, now that the social conservatives are running out of states in which to introduce bigot amendments (and are likely to lose their political influence along with their Republican majority in the House), if they increasingly turn instead to private-sector displays of their "oppression" at the hands of the gay-friendly and present ever more demands for "reasonable accommodation."

Hopefully future targets of these demands will actually be "reasonable" in their response — by denying them.

MAJOR UPDATE: The transit company reversed itself in light of the nationwide indignation. (Hat tip.)

POST SCRIPT #1: Speaking of "primitive faiths" and gays, the Catholics are at it again. The only thing loopier than a gay Republican is a gay Catholic.

POST SCRIPT #2: Speaking of barbarians and gays, John McCain is at it again. He's all for gay marriage, as long as it's not gay marriage. There's a word for people for John McCain.