On Gay Acceptance, Or, "Wheres Are Special Day?"

Unless Willie Brown was once your city’s mayor, the odds are pretty good that the gay community in your city is not as “out and proud” as they wish they could be.

In my little corner of the world, the plain fact is that it’s probably a lot easier to remain closeted than it is to deal daily with the little taunts and jabs that come your way—and of course for some, there’s the risk that they might end up like Matthew Shepard...a man who ended up out and dead.

There has been a reaction to that reality in high schools, which is why we are today visiting the public spaces just off the campus of Mt. Si High School in Snoqualmie, Washington (home of the Wildcats), where a local church group will be arriving to protest the school’s annual “Day of Silence”, an effort to acknowledge the pressures placed on the school’s gay population.

Displayed among the various protesters today was fear, ignorance, disingenuousness, and a strange mixture of self-righteousness and homoeroticism...and that was just among the people in the church group.

Were minds changed?
Did anyone make a new friend?
And how do Dr. Martin Luther King and the Pledge of Allegiance fit into the picture?
Follow along, and we shall see.

Today’s story, as with so much else, requires background and context...and this story actually began in January, when the school invited the Reverend Ken Hutcherson to speak to the assembled students about the King legacy.

Unspoken in the invitation is the fact that the good Reverend is also the local representative of the “God Hates Fags” community, and it is today unclear if that was an intentional slight or a question of ignorance on the part of the school administration. It is a known fact that the Reverend has children attending the school, and that he is part of the African-American experience in this country; these are the explanations commonly given for the invitation.

All of this came to a head during the school assembly on that day, when Kit McCormick, the faculty advisor to the Mt. Si’s Gay-Straight Alliance chapter publicly “called out” the Reverend for the apparent hypocrisy of giving a speech on diversity while basing a career on the exclusion of homosexuals from every facet of human life possible.

Apparently feeling the need to “reach out and touch someone” in response, a counter-protest was scheduled by Hutcherson to complain about the school’s willingness to allow the “Day of Silence” event to occur during classroom hours.

What is the “Day of Silence”, exactly? Conversations with current students describe it as an event that changes from year to year—one year students covered their mouths with duct tape during the school day, another year tie-dye armbands were the means of expression...and in each case, the point is to create an awareness of the plight of those who cannot come out, for fear that they might be victimized—and to symbolize solidarity with fellow students in such a plight.

To generate the noise required to drown out the “Day of Silence”, the Reverend had been telling the public of his plans to bring “1000 Prayer Warriors” to the school, which is why on this Friday morning at 9AM more than 40 police vehicles (I counted) are already in the parking lot of the local fire station—a parking lot that typically contains fewer than 10 vehicles, even on a busy day.

I managed to make it to the early morning press availability provided by the school Administration, and the message provided was basically that students are within their rights to protest, the Reverend will do what he is going to do, that the entire exercise is a good learning experience for the student body, and that there will be steps taken to isolate the protest to a location off the campus, which is intended to minimize disruptions to learning.

It was reported that about 1/3 of students would not be in attendance today; and that as with any high school, there will be students who come and go throughout the day, meaning it will be impossible to assure with 100% certainty that students and protest won’t come into contact along the way.

I’m also told by current students that there can be considerable social stigma attached to not participating in the otherwise voluntary “Day of Silence”, and that may provide an explanation for some of today’s high absenteeism.

Considering the number of police vehicles known to be in the immediate area, there are a very small number of visible, uniformed officers. There are one or two marked police vehicles at each entrance, about four uniformed officers and a sergeant in the “designated protest area”...and although I had my suspicions, I could only identify one person as being a plainclothes officer.

(I was told later by a student that there were officers in plain clothes in the back row of her classes, and new “custodians” working today that she had never seen before--which seems to tell its own story...)

It’s about 9:30, and the only people around are the police, a group of 10 or so supporting the gay community (my favorite sign: “I Believe In Separation Of Church And Hate”), and a substantial contingent of the local media, including all the local TV network affiliates.

Since the festivities haven’t really begun, I chose to take a coffee break (I’m dedicated enough to attend events so I can report on them for you, Gentle Reader, but this is 10AM, and that’s early for me...), and by the time I’ve returned things are starting to get under way.

There are about 75 to 100 of the Prayer Warriors assembled, and rather than the convoy of busses we were expecting, there’s on e “school bus” and groups of others who are walking up to the event from the parking places they’ve found in the surrounding neighborhood.

‘They are being met by about 30 counter-protesters...some of whom are suggesting that the Warriors might wish to perform certain acts upon themselves, supplemented by another who questions whether some of the Warriors might have been inappropriately touched as children. A sign questions whether the Reverend is another Larry Craig or Ted Haggard. Most of this is surprisingly good-humored; and the group appears to be mostly of student age or near student age.

Someone in the group has a small boombox...and they’re asking the cop that’s assigned to face them if he knew he’d be with the dancing group. He and they find that funny, and so do I.

When both sides had achieved their full strength, just about 150 of the Warriors were present, and about 30 or so on the other side.

And it’s at this point that we need to say a few words about the makeup of the Prayer Warriors’ group.

About 20% of the group was of student age, and the remaining 80% seemed to have been accompanying the Reverend. Of the students, my favorites were the “Straight Pride” group (6 people-I counted), all of whom had hand-lettered shirts with their message, front and back. One of the group chose to depart from the pattern of the others and put his own unique message on the back of his shirt...which is how we found the title of today’s story:

“Wheres Are Special Day?”

Now it’s easy to make fun of the foolish, but the group that the Reverend brought with him was another matter entirely—and by that I mean they were a bit...scary.

For starters, the group just oozed fear—and here’s just one example. A woman was carrying a sign that read “My Athlete Is Safe At Home”. When I walked up to her and asked what danger her athlete faced that would prompt such a message, the man next to her demanded to know who I was. When I asked him why he might ask such a question, both he and the woman holding the sign refused to say another word.

But the strangest display of paranoia came with the deployment of the Reverend’s “fake police”. He was surrounded by at least 8 men who were all trying to look exactly like plainclothes officers...and it appeared to me that at least one, and maybe two of the “pro-gay” protesters might have been part of his group as well...but then again, that could just be my paranoia at work.

And here’s another thing. The reverend seems to surround himself with what appear to be current or former athletes...and to be honest, they kind of looked like the guys that pat each pother on the butt just a bit too hard...and then go find a gay person to bash in order to prove their manhood.

I’m trying to be objective here, but to be completely honest, some of the Reverend’s group looked like a pair of assless chaps and a leather baseball cap would be all they need to make the transition from “Prayer Warrior” to “Leather Daddy”...and at least one other gentleman looked like he might have a bit of a “wide stance” himself—if you know what I mean.

Statistics suggest that out of 120 who appeared to have come with the Reverend, more or less a dozen are gay...and in that group, staying in the closet is likely a matter of daily stress and strain.

One other thing I found odd was the reluctance of the Reverend’s group to remain in the near vicinity of the gay-supporting group. When the Reverend’s group was forming they were within 20 feet of the other side, but by the time the whole group had assembled they had moved their core more than 50 feet away—and if I didn’t know better, I’d say they did it because they were afraid that by being too close they too might “catch the gay”, which, as I understand from their shouts, is apparently some sort of abomination that would instantly doom them to a life of...well, whatever it is, it must be pretty bad.

The requisite speech having been given and media footage having been captured, it was time for the event to end, as was indicated when one of the “fake police” told the group: “That’s it, let’s go”.

And they did.

I saw the Reverend do a media stand-up afterwards, and he told the reporter that he wasn’t ant-gay, or against the Day of Silence itself. What upset him, he reports, is that the event distracted from the learning environment (remember “Wheres Are Special Day”? I’d suggest that ship has already sailed...), and that the event was allowed to occur during the school day.

And that’s where we get to the “Pledge of Allegiance”. As it turns out, the United States Supreme Court, in a series of cases that begin with Minersville has ruled that students have a “right of silence” that allows then the complete freedom to exercise this sort of protest...and the fact that the Reverend was publicly not aware of this either speaks poorly of his own educational background or suggests he would prefer that topic not come up.

So that was pretty much it: the Reverend came to make his statement, he looked a bit silly doing it, 850 of the Prayer Warriors apparently had other things to do, his paranoia and fear were everywhere evident...and his use of “fake police” as a tool of intimidation appeared to intimidate no one.

I saw no minds changed on either side, roughly 60 students got a direct political education...and at least on one side, a fun time was had by all.

0

Thanks, Fake

About 20% of the group was of student age, and the remaining 80% seemed to have been accompanying the Reverend.

Just a little side question: what do you think the mix would have been twenty or thirty years ago? And what will we see (if anything) twenty years from now?

thirty years ago...

...would have been one year before stonewall, suggesting there would have been very little "gay support" out there.

twenty years from now? part of the issue for gay acceptance is the "bogeyman factor", meaning that as long as a scapegoat is needed for some reason, one will be found.

will it be gays...or will it be those who practice islam, or immigrants, or the chinese?

i don't yet know, but it will presumably be someone.

As always, an interesting report, FC.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

as always...

...thanks so much for the kind words.

Why the focus on group identity?

Many people are always damning the division in society that is clearly visible, but the concept of group identity is exactly why there's so much division. Racial divides; the straights vs. gays; rich vs. poor; Republican vs. Democrat. It's all because of collectivism that permeates society.

Why can't everyone just be an individual who associates with whomever they want and exercise their liberty to make choices as they please as long as they don't coerce the liberty of others?

Why? Because there are

Why?

Because there are people who are afraid of people and ideas that they don't understand. There are people who are afraid of black people - all black people, or some black people. There are people who think that gay might be contagious.

It's nice to wish that everyone could just be individuals and we'd only be judged on the content of our character, but as Pam has pointed out in a separate post today, that's just not where we are right now.

We must confront hatred and bigotry head on, not with anger, but with logic, and do our best to change it. One at a time.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

J.Levi.Knapp's picture

Group Identity

The need to feel like part of a group is very real. Being surrounded by like minded people is a desire of human nature. I don't think that anyone should feel bad about wanting that.
Look at BlueNC, in essence its a progressive blog, although there is often some lively debate, really we're here because we all have similar ideas and its nice to bounce them off one another.
Maybe we are being individuals who are associating with whomever we want. Maybe the group dynamic is what is wanted.
I can say that hanging out with my straight friends is not the same as hanging out with my gay friends. Why is that?
Even in the Democratic Party, homophobia exists. Working on a previous, very progressive campaign, I was a little surprised how often the word 'fag' was used, how often the punch line was in reference to a person's sexual identity. How the idea of equality was embraced but at the end of the day, acceptance and tolerance are/were two very different ideas.
I guess the need to belong to a group, or specifically the gay community, is that sometimes its nice to go somewhere and know for a surety that no one is calling you a faggot when your back is turned, or really, even when its not.
I imagine its the same for any group that is persecuted for whatever reason.

Levi

Association is fine.

Freedom of association is one of the hallmarks of a free society. The problem I have is the definition of people in terms of groups, rather than the definition of people in terms of their own unique individuality. You may be gay, but you shouldn't be defined as "a gay," because your sexuality is just one aspect of your personality and should not serve as some sort of clustering device. I don't know you, but I'm sure that you have many personality characteristics that are quite different from other people who are gay, just as I have personality characteristics that differ from others who are straight.

This concept certainly carries over to politics, and I hypothesize that it's one of the main reasons for the deep partisan divide we have. Take, for instance, the "conservative vs. liberal" battle that's always advertised on t.v.. In the Republican Party, you have to pass the "conservative" litmus test to be a leader in the party or a nominee for office; on the Democratic side, you have to pass the "liberal" litmus test. The bases of the respective parties for these litmus tests, and people have to conform to them and take on the respective group labels that accompany them in order to have say or run for office. But the terms "conservative" and "liberal" don't define people, and they don't define sets of policy positions; they define attitudes. A conservative attitude (gleaned from a number of dictionary sources) emphasizes ideas such as restraint, preservation of tradition and/or existing conditions, and hesitancy to massive and/or swift change. A liberal attitude emphasizes ideas such as freedom, generosity, reform, and open-mindedness. By this definition, can you tell me what stance a conservative attitude(or a liberal one) motivates the issues of the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, or the legalization of marijuana? I could see each attitude motivating a whole host of stances on any of those three issues and on any other issue, really.

Heck, let's take another buzzword you threw out there: progressive. A progressive, by definition, is someone who favors progress. What's progress? Progress means a different million things to a million different people. How can you take the word progressive and define a certain set of principles and policy positions as THE set that represents progress for everyone, and that by default those who favor these policy positions are the group that favors "progress" while the group that doesn't (or doesn't share one or some of them) agree with you doesn't favor progress? Not dropping the hammer on you personally, but that is something of an arrogant attitude to have, and it's promulgation among many others feeds into this phenomenon of group identity making us all wish the other would take a long walk off a short cliff.

In my own case, I would characterize my political views as libertarian, but I don't define myself as "a libertarian" because I reject the idea that political views should establish a collective categorization of people.

Sorry about being snippy earlier

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I do believe you're an idealist - which all by itself is inspiring.

No problem at all.

I'm 6'5 and 240 lbs. I can handle snippy.

The greatest advances are grounded in the thoughts of idealists who dream of what's possible. I read a thread on here earlier about Kay Hagan stating that refusing PAC money is "unrealistic," in which another poster retorted by pointing out Obama and Jim Neal as examples of the need for having a vision of the possible in order to bring about change. This applies in every realm of life.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but

I'm 6'5 and 240 lbs. I can handle snippy.

you're way too sharp to consider an imposing physique as an asset in a philosophical debate, even one where you seem to be outnumbered. Especially one where you're outnumbered, because you're trying to establish credibility for your beliefs in an already dubious environment.

So you're big and you think that means something?

I'm 4'11", and I could take you out with one kick to the back of the knee. So we're even there, yes? Size ain't everything, darlin'.

But I don't think it would come to that - seriously. Don't be so touchy and gruff. A vision of the possible is absolutely necessary, but you've got to start from reality to make the vision come to life.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

in this case...

...it's a "group identity" story.

this was not about 1000 individuals who were supposed to protest, but instead a story of an army of "prayer warriors" who mostly stayed home.

and to tell the truth, it's also a story of "herd mentality" and how that creates its own self-sustaining dynamic.

on the other side, yes, i wish we could treat each student as a unique individual...but the manner in which the reverend relates to "the gays" makes this a story that was destined to be about group identity

Oh, I wasn't rebutting your post.

My post was at least intended as a commentary on the fallacy of the reverend's position.

i feel for the reverend...

...and i try to imagine how hard it must be to go out to a restaurant, for example, and wonder if the food server might give you "the gay"...or even worse, imagine having to get anti-gay inoculated--which, ironically, sounds kind of gay in and of itself...

Sure, confront it.

But confront it with the philosophy of individuality. Don't confront with the idea that everyone is defined as a member of a group, simply because some people who promote bigoted ideas believe that people are members of groups. Individualism will defeat bigotry, not collectivism.

I see what you mean.

Don't ignore it and pretend we're all the same - acknowledge that we're all different. I think we're on the same wavelength, at least on this one. Unfortunately, groups of individuals are still put in the position of having to band together in order to either protect themselves or insist on or somehow "earn" the equal rights they were already promised by the Constitution.

BTW - I saw that your guy (Lawson) denounced that NC-GOP ad. Good for him. It's good to work for a campaign you can be proud of, isn't it?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

I'm a nitpicking arse, but here it goes.

My focus isn't necessarily to acknowledge we're all "different." The focus on difference is something that collectivists use to divide and promote their agenda. My focus is to acknowledge we're all individuals. Sure, that means that as a consequence, we acknowledge that we're all as individuals different, but my focus is on the individual.

And yes, I can't say how proud I am to work for Beej. I actually called him the night after the ad was first released when I saw it to tell him that we had to say something about it, and I couldn't get him on the phone. I didn't need to: he had already put a blog posting on the website. It's great to work for someone running on principle, and whose principles you share.

the focus on difference...

...as i address below, is also a prime driver of narrative, whether you're a collectivist or not.

some additional movies (great movies are at heart great stories, after all) that use the "difference" technique to tell a story: "sabrina", "roman holiday", and "casablanca".

it is iroinic that as we seek individuality we are concurrently bound by our group identities ("american", "liberal", and "individualist" being quick examples)...but i would suggest both can co-exist in the same space--that even as i associate with the "liberal" community, my take on all these issues is in fact somewhat unique.

the taoists would tell us this duality of existence is perfectly natural...and they might be right.

there is another way...

...which is to show just how foolish some groups can be.

that is the genesis of satire...consider "candide" or "micromegas"--or "huckleberry finn" for that matter--as examples of the individual overcoming the foolishness of various groups.

for more recent examples, go back and rewatch the movies "stripes" or "aminal house"...or "m.a.s.h.".

in each case the narrative is based on the absurdity of group behavior...and in each case, it makes a great story of contrast.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And Helms begat Reagan...


Arguably, Ronald Reagan's Helms enabled win in the 1976 NC primary was all the encouragement he needed to try again in 1980, setting the stage for the Reagan Revolution and synergistic escapades like this one...

TrueMeckDem on Myers Park Pat

"My opinion of Pat has changed over the years. I used to think he was truly a man of the people but the longer he has been mayor, the less I think of him.

As with most cities, Charlotte has three political parties: Dem, Rep, and Chamber of Commerce. Pat is definitely the puppet of the COC here. What is good for business is good for Charlotte and Pat ... very personable guy, he has gotten a bunch of Dems in these parts to vote for him but I don't trust him."

Join the discussion here.