Monday, June 3, 2013

A great use of texting, mixed blessings of going to reunions, Liberty Press is not just for Kansas

Reading your article in the current issue of Liberty Press: In all the discussion of the positives and negatives of texting, I had never heard how much good it does for people like your Jack.  As you say, it is a good way to communicate with kids with autism.

And I suspect many of us, gay and non-gay have had less than pleasurable experiences in going to reunions, but perhaps a few of those who ask us personal questions are really trying to understand.  Maybe they should see a copy of Liberty Press—but I must admit I am not sure of the “meaning” of the wild cover of the June issue.  I think it means that pride is both a heart-felt thing and a whole body thing.

I think Stephanie Mott’s experience with the young boy fits that thought too: when he asked her if she is a boy or girl, she wisely asked him what he thought—because she had already asked herself that question at the start of her long journey, and she’d not had reason to ask that question much since that first time.

Bob Minor asks—as have many others—what do we mean about our Pride events?  Apparently when we act normally—have a picture of our spouse or even friend, many heterosexuals still can’t see that this is what THEY do and don’t think it is “pushing” their sexuality.  It is a “double standard,” as many black Americans, or women also face. Again, I think he is right, when we celebrate ourselves, we “free” non-gay people from having to worry about their own sexuality, just as when members of other minorities are equal, we all feel freer. While not many white people actually were afraid of being thought black—although a few (such as Dinah Shore) were, most were just accused of being n...lovers, I do think some gay-friendly people worry that they might be accused of being gay (as if the only reason to support our civil rights is if someone IS gay).

Time will answer Danny Cooper’s (and lots of others’) questions about how the Supreme Court will rule on the marriage cases. I think we all know that just changing a law does not end the problem-“Board of Education” sure took decades to get results and “Roe” has not done much good to change people’s minds.  It seems that the end of sodomy laws (“Lawrence”) has not had any bad results, and the same seems true of the end of DADT. So the odds are in our favor, and history will show the bigots, even those on the Supreme Court, are losers and the ignorant ones.

(I just watched a movie on Charlie Chaplin and it seems relevant to point out that the court refused to honor a paternity test proving Chaplin was NOT the father of a child, strange considering how easy such a test is to get today,and courts honor it today—so things can and do change, mostly for the better.)

No comments: