Kiss Off

Picture it: two lovebirds, strolling hand in hand through a park at night; one leans in and kisses the other on the cheek. A charming little scene, no? Well, not if the park abuts a Mormon temple, and the two lovebirds are both male. In this case, the scene ends with our lovebirds pinned to the ground, handcuffed by church security guards.

This really happened, two weeks ago in Salt Lake City. On July 9th, Matt Aune and Derek Jones say they were walking home from a concert and decided to take a shortcut through Main Street Plaza. Holding hands while walking, Aune says he put his hand on his partner's back and kissed him on the cheek. This attracted church security guards, who told the men to leave the plaza, which just happens to be owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The guards told the pair that public displays of affection are barred on the plaza, but the men protested, saying they had seen many couples holding hands and kissing there. Tensions flared, and the church guards handcuffed the men, pinned them to the ground, and called the police, who issued both men citations for criminal tresspass.

That's the thing about Main Street Plaza. It is private property; the LDS church aquired it from the city in a controversial land swap in 2003. The church wanted control of the land next to their temple so they could prohibit protests, smoking, sunbathing and other "offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct," according to church officials.

According to the Salt Lake City Tribune, "it remains a popular pedestrian thoroughfare, and a site where couples often pose affectionately for photos." I wonder if hand-holding, hugging, or kisses on the cheek are included in that definition of "affection." No doubt the couples in those cases are straight, and left alone by church security guards.

Of course, church spokesperson Kim Farah had a different version of the story. "They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol." Farah doesn't specify that the "profane and lewd language" occured after the pair were handcuffed and manhandled by church guards. It's also fair to point out that what constitutes " passionate kissing" and "groping" is probably in the eye of the beholder. In the end it's the church's word against the couple's. Who do you believe?

This past Sunday, a protest was held near Main Street Plaza. About 100 people showed up and held a mass "kiss in." Both gay and straight couples took part, engaging in "gentle displays of affection"; hugs and pecks on the cheek. This, of course, was met with counter protesters, carrying signs denouncing homosexuality, and the two groups engaged in shouting matches. Dan Savage has some beautiful photos of the protest here.

Schadenfreude

From AfterElton: "Bruno, the movie that everyone has an opinion about, is tanking at the box office...Ever since the movie opened on July 10th with a very healthy one-day take of $14.4 million, the film's box office news has gone from bad to worse."

Black or White?

And I Told About Equality

And It's True

Either You're Wrong

Or You're Right

But, If

You're Thinkin'

About My Baby

It Don't Matter If You're

Black Or White

Michael Jackson, Black or White

In all the news, gossip and paranoia circulating since Michael Jackson's death three weeks ago, the question of his sexuality seems almost obscured. Ironic, isn't it? People speculated about it for years, but now everyone seems most interested in his artistic legacy, his kids, the battle over his estate, and the investigation into his death. The media coverage between his death and memorial service touted his enormous talent and early success, but seemed oddly restrained, almost awkward, when relating the later, more tragic turns in his life. I guess it's a fine line to tread between respecting a recently-deceased (and still significantly beloved) celebrity's memory, and objectively reporting the more discomforting details of his life.

Jackson's sexuality is, for some, clearly discomforting, but probably for different reasons. Two big questions loom: was he gay, and was he a pedophile? A new book by celebrity biographer Ian Halperin attempts to answer them. In Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson, Halperin claims to have interviewed two of Jackson's adult male lovers, and says "virtually everybody I've interviewed about Jackson has told me: He's gay." Halperin writes "it's clear that Michael was homosexual and that his taste was for young men," but stresses that he was not sexually interested in boys as young as those who accused him of molestation. "Even those who are his most ardent defenders, people who maintain that he is innocent of the molestation charges, insist that he is homosexually inclined," he wrote.

I've read many comments on the internets from fans offended that his sex life is even being discussed now, but it's an undeniable part of his legacy as a performer, artist and celebrity. You'd think his fans would rally around any source proclaiming his innocence from child molestation claims, but some seem almost equally horrified by the suggestion he might have been gay. Is it because they still equate the two? The old myth that gay men like "little boys" still persists, despite much evidence that pedophilia exists across the full spectrum of sexual orientations. Gay men are no more likely to molest a child than straight men, and anyone with an ounce of brain cells should grasp this.

But that doesn't prove or disprove anything in Jackson's case. I guess that's my fear; that if people are thinking of Michael Jackson as gay, it will further the lie that we're all child molesters, too. I've heard other gay people support this: "we don't want him," they say. "Too tainted." Ouch. I can't go that far; I'm still a fan from way back. Yes, Michael was a a freak for sure, but he had a rough life, a horrible childhood, and a monster of a father. I was a little 13 year-old gayling when he moonwalked across the Motown 25 stage, at the peak of his ridiculous cuteness, still identifiably male, black and human. I was mesmerized, like we all were, in that pop culture moment. My music tastes changed, his life and appearance became increasingly more bizarre, but I guess I still have a soft spot. I'd rather believe he was just a closeted gay man with personal problems galore, and not a pedophile, but I'm afraid some will just assume he was both; another disgusting gay pervert who couldn't be trusted around children.

We'll likely never know the truth about Michael Jackson, but it's difficult to separate his career and public image from his sexuality. Aside from the pedophile topic, there's his gender-bending appearance, crotch-grabbing dance moves, tabloid-fodder relationships. Although some will obviously exploit it, it seems like a valid topic. His career, even his life, or at least our perception of it, are inseparable from his sexuality.

Drama on Ice!

Remember that really bitchy girl in high school that was always trying to steal everyone’s boyfriend?

Or that desperate girl in college that was always trying to turn gay men straight?

And that conniving, back-stabbing slut that wants to break up your marriage, and not only steal away your man, but your baby, too?

Sounds like a bad soap opera, doesn’t it? Well, it’s not. It’s Linda; the home wrecker...of the penguin world.

You may remember the touching story of Harry and Pepper, the male Magellanic penguins that paired up a few years ago at the San Francisco Zoo. Single females came calling at the burrow they shared, but neither were interested. The two even incubated and hatched an orphaned egg in the nest they shared. They seemed like any other penguin couple, except, you know, gay.

That was until Linda broke them up. According to zookeeper Anthony Brown, Linda has a bit of a reputation. She dumped her own partner a few years back and took up with another penguin just hours after his partner had died. Girl moves fast! Then that penguin died, and within weeks she was seen entertaining Harry in her burrow. Hussy! As if that wasn't bad enough, the two confronted Pepper and violence ensued, forcing all three to be separated. This actually is a soap opera!

The initial story of Harry and Pepper actually started a lot of dialogue on homosexuality: hey, if it’s natural and normal in the animal world, maybe it’s natural and normal in the human world, right? Except now we're not sure what this is. Is Harry gay? Bi? Was the nature of his relationship with Pepper really analogous to heterosexual penguin relationships? We're not zoologists so we can't claim to know, but it gets you thinking. Is Harry closeting himself with Linda? Is she blackmailing him? Or maybe she's doing all this to get back at Pepper for something?

Anthropomorphizing these animals is easy, especially with a scheming harpy like somebody Aaron Spelling dreamed up thrown into the mix. But when it comes to sex, and sexual relationships, well...there's a reason we humans call it "the birds and the bees." Sex is pretty animalistic, and sexual desire is a primal force for people and animals alike, so it seems logical that if there are gay people, there are gay animals. And if there are gay animals, why not bi ones? And why not homewrecking animals, too? Maybe we're not assigning human traits to animals when we process these relationships...maybe we're really recognizing the roots of our own behavior?

As for our penguin love triangle, Pepper was recently brought back to the penguin exhibit, where he's taken up his old spot, while Harry and Linda are still together in her nest. Things are calm now, but everyone's waiting to see what happens next. Molting season is coming up later this month, and Brown says couples often "shaken up" at that time. "It'll be interesting to see if Harry spends any of that time with Pepper," he said. "Well have to wait and see."

What's a soap opera without a cliffhanger?

Someone with a Backbone

What do you get when you mix together:

- A Congressman
- An Iraq war vet
- A supporter of overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell
- A cute Irishman

Why, you get Congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional district (Bucks County). You also get a member of Congress with a backbone.

Second-term congressman Patrick Murphy, a member of the Armed Services Committee, plans to sponsor a bill that would overturn the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. Murphy was elected in 2006 after defeating Republican incumbent Michael Fitzpatrick; a major feat in itself with the 8th Congressional district being historically Republican. Oh, and he was the first Iraq vet ever elected to the Congress.

Why is this exciting?

First, President Obama has, on many occasions, stated that he would sign any bill into law that overturns DADT.

Second, support in Congress has been positive. Murphy and his supporters are securing new signatures daily.

Third, someone in Congress finally has the balls to get the ball rolling on this. As we've discussed on several occasions, DADT has been under enormous scrutiny and has been a major point of discussion.

Fourth, the bill is being sponsored by someone who was a soldier. Murphy knew soldiers dismissed under DADT; Murphy can speak first-hand on the implications of discharging skilled soldiers, and on how those in the trenches really feel about DADT. Murphy can speak first-hand on why this policy is stupid, and discriminatory.

Listen to Murphy yourself:

We'll be toasting to you this weekend Congressman Murphy!

Schlemiel, Schlimazel, Hasenpfeffer Incorporated.

As I reported yesterday, Joyce Dewitt was arrested for DUI, forever tarnishing the image of Janet Wood. I just hope she didn't lose her job at the flower shop.

It seems that another TV icon from the 1970s/80s has joined her, but the story was lost under all the Michael Jackson hoopla. Yes, Eddie Mekka, aka Carmine Ragusa, aka the Big Raggo, was busted for DUI last week in Las Vegas. Shirley Feeney has yet to return our calls for comment.

What next? Marla Gibbs arrested for prostitution? Ernest Thomas becomes a suicide bomber? Jean Stapleton arrested for murder?

Sigh.

Maybe this will cheer you up:

Distürbed

Remember how we said we were going to see Brüno? Alex insisted on going, not for entertainment, but for research. The marketing smacks of a minstrel show in pink-face, but you can't judge a movie without seeing it, right?

Oh, yeah, you can.

Get this (and spoiler alert, if you care): word is coming out that the ending was changed before release. The original ending featured a "violent gay-bashing." Comedy gold! And so clever, too. In a version of the film screened in February, Brüno, the gay, scantily clad, sexually inappropriate, ridiculously coiffed, borderline-retarded Austrian entertainment reporter played by Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat), faces his lovesick assistant in a cage match before a crowd of Arkansas wrestling fans. Instead of fighting, though, they make out, and are attacked by the crowd. The scene cuts to a press conference where Brüno announces their intent to marry, but, according to Richard Day, who attended the screening, "the boyfriend is now drooling, seemingly brain-damaged, and in a wheelchair, played for laughs.”

Day, a writer, director and producer (Arrested Development, Ellen) and actor Jack Plotnick were the only two openly gay people at the February screening. Day says they both voiced their concerns to the other industry types present, but "by the time I got to the bashing, the audience started defending the movie. They were annoyed with us for ruining the party."

Where to start with this? We wanted to see this movie to determine first-hand who Cohen is mocking, gay people, or homophobes? We could possibly look past the offensive stereotyping, if there was some hint of a redeeming message underneath it. Maybe Cohen's formula of kamikazi-interviews and staged spectacles before hostile crowds would evoke some new understanding of homophobia, exposing an unexpecting audience to an ultimately gay-positive image.

Well, forget that. Cohen crafted the whole scene as a prank, of course, according to a report on the Smoking Gun from last year. Locals were lured by Craigslist ads promoting "Blue Collar Brawling," and the promise of $1 beers and "hot chicks." What they got instead was two men playing homosexuals, with the intent to incite the crowd, all to complete a joke where the punchline is a gay man beaten to within an inch of his life.

Where's the message in that? What IS the message? Is it "beating up gay people is funny?" Or is it "gay bashers are funny?"

Because neither is funny to us. Call us humorless, but this is just beyond defense, and it hints at a bigger problem of tone that won't be fixed by simply changing the ending (it's now a scene of domestic bliss). The idea that this film was ever intended to target homophobia, and not gay people, is now proven false. It's one thing to sterotype speech or mannerisms or even sexual proclivities for laughs, but to make light of the brutal hatred and violence inflicted on gay people by bashers is just too much. It's just not funny. It's cruel, and vicious, and hateful. If you laugh at this, you have a problem.

Richard Day has an interesting take on it. He met with Cohen and director Larry Charles before shooting started, when all they had was an outline. Charles had told him they wanted "a gay voice" involved in the project, but after he gave his two cents, he never heard from them again until the screening. Day's take on that first peek at Cohen's vision for Brüno? "It read like it was written by people who didn’t know much about actual gay life."

Sounds like they still don't.

We're not wasting our money on this one.