Queer Notes From All Over (Gay Teens Kill Selves Division)

AMERICA - You've no doubt heard about the gay teen suicides - responses to bullying - that have clotted the cosmos (and this country) in the past few weeks. In their reporting, the media have rightly focused on the nature of bullying and the need to address it in schools and homes. 
   Plenty of pubic figures have had their say, too. Among them are the comedian Kathy Griffin, who spoke to teens in a "message from" video; the writer Dan Savage, who founded the It Gets Better Project, which has a Web site and YouTube page (on the latter, folks post vids telling their stories of being bullied and offering hope to kids currently in a similar situation); and Lance Bass, former boy-band member, who appeared on Larry King Live Oct. 4 to decry bullying and share his experiences as a (now) openly gay man. 
   Lesser known figures have contributed to the dialogue, too. Over at the music blog The Popsucker, Jared Stearns bravely and brilliantly wrote about his experience as a gay teenager who was bullied in high school. The Good Men Project, a Web magazine, ran Jared's blog post and a companion piece about what makes a bully and what solutions to the problem might be workable. 
   It is with this in mind that we now turn our attention to a man with the refreshing name of Jim DeMint. Would that his outlook on gays and lesbians were as bracing as his name. 
   Mr. DeMint (pictured below) is a Republican Senator from South Carolina. Recent press reports noted that at an Oct. 1 rally, held at a Spartanburg, South Carolina church, Mr. Senator DeMint said that those who are openly gay and lesbian shouldn't teach in public schools. 

   Dear Mr. Senator DeMint: We'd like you to meet a former California politician named John Briggs. Back in the day he sponsored Proposition 6, aka The Briggs Initiative, which set out to remove gay/lesbian employees (including, obviously, teachers) from the state's schools. The measure did not pass, not least because a man named Harvey Milk bested Mr. Briggs in a series of high-profile debates. This was in 1978. 
   Nineteen seventy-eight. Either you're a time traveler, Mr. Senator DeMint, or a nostalgist, or a Capricorn. Or you are cynical beyond compare, a possibility that wins our vote. 
   At least Mr. Senator DeMint sticks to his guns. During a televised Senate-race debate way back in 2004 (but not 1978), Mr. DeMint said more or less the same thing. 
   An Oct. 4, 2004 story (yes, 2004; now we are time traveling) posted on the Web site of WIS-TV, which is located in  Columbia, S.C., reported that during the debate Mr. Senator DeMint and his opponent were questioned about their stance regarding a state Republican party platform stating that gays and lesbians should not teach in schools. The WIS-TV story noted that "[Mr. Senator] DeMint says he supports that because government should not endorse particular behaviors." 

   Mr. Senator DeMint later walked the comment back after an outcry from queer and other groups, saying, oddly, that it was "something as a dad I shouldn't have said." 
   Later that month, the minty-fresh Senator appeared on Meet the Press, where then-host Tim Russert pressed him on the comments. 
   As any political junkie knows, high profile politicians are handed (by staff or their party bosses) "talking points" with which to smooth over dopey off-the-cuff comments. Mr. Senator DeMint's Meet the Press talking points involved referring the gay-teachers issue  to local school boards, and "apologizing" not for his comments about said teachers but for "distracting from the debate." 
   How do we know this? Because the other day the Huffington Post printed a transcript of the conversation, which here we selectively excerpt. Each of the ellipses represents a question Mr. Russert asked:  


Mr. Russert: Blah blah gays should not teach in schools blah blah?
Mr. Senator DeMint: I believe that's a local school board issue. And, Tim, I was answering as a dad who's put lots of children in the hands of teachers and I answered with my heart. [Editor's note: Huh?] And I should just say, again, I apologize that distracted from the real debate. 
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: ...I am apologizing for talking about a local school board issue when the voters want us to talk about blah blah blah. 
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: Listen, I have my personal beliefs, Tim, but I honestly believe that the teachers should be hired by local school districts. They [the school districts] should be making the decisions on who should be in the classroom. 
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: I apologized for answering a local school board question. 
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: I think the local school board should make that issue, not Senate can - I mean, make that decision.  [Editor's note: Heh. Senate can.]
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: And I apologize for that, Tim.
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: Yeah, for distracting from the real thing.
...
Mr. Senator DeMint: Tim, who hires teachers should be decided by school boards. 


The Tally: 
   *Apologizing/distracting: 5
   *It's a school board issue: 6
   *A dad putting children in the hands of teachers: 1, but a very weird 1.


   This type of circular, not to say dizzying, conversation is typical of obfuscating politicians. 
   But the time has run out on these shenanigans. The proper answer to the Mr. Senator DeMints of the world is: 
   "It's because of people like you and your stance on gays teaching in schools that America's gay kids are killing themselves." 
   If you are of the mindset and temperament, you may add, "So go fuck yourself, you self-serving sack of shit," which, while not actually elevating the debate, would have the salutary effect of adding the words "fuck" and "shit" to the conversation, always a fine thing. 





   UPDATE: An Oct. 7 Huffington Post report noted that gay/lesbian and women's groups roundly hissed Mr. Senator DeMint's ill-advised (and super dumb) comments. So did two of the nation's largest and most powerful teachers' unions. No surprise there. 
   No surprise here, either: Mr. Senator DeMint's communications director, a man named Wesley Denton, told the Huffington Post that "[Mr.] Senator DeMint believes that hiring decisions at local schools are a local school board issue, not a federal issue." 
   That bumps the above "It's a school board issue" tally to a whopping seven (well, six in one interview and a seventh free-standing). This makes clear that Mr. Senator DeMint is the type of person who offers passionate opinions the fallout from which he then skedaddles away from as fast as his little legs will carry him. Sometimes he even hides under the skirts of his undoubtedly  unfailingly dependable communications communicator. 
   In grown-up land, this sort of behavior is considered, and therefore called,  "craven and cowardly." In politics, it is called, alas, "campaigning." 

Love is All Around (Gay/Lesbian Relationship Breakups Division)

SAN FRANCISCO, Ca. – A workshop is being offered here to provide guidance to lesbian and gay couples whose relationships are ending, and not a moment too soon, if organizers are to be believed, and why shouldn't they be? They, after all, are the experts.

  The Bay Area Reporter, a free weekly newspaper (“Serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities since 1971”), noted in a May 6 piece that the first session of the two-part course was Friday (May 8). The second will be Saturday, June 5.

 The appealingly named Judy Appel, the executive director of Our Family Coalition, the coordinating organization, told the paper, “Our families, like all families, go through all the same cycles of meeting and getting together and having relationships, and unfortunately, sometimes breaking up.”

  She added, referring to mismatched state laws regarding same-gender marriage and domestic partnerships, “There’s [sic] definitely complicating factors that heterosexual couples don’t have to think about. … We have to work so hard to build recognition of our relationships that sometimes we’re reluctant to talk about the breakups.”

  This is true. Heterosexuals, who allegedly revere the state of holy matrimony, have made it easy on themselves to get out of it. Gays and lesbians eager for the day when same-gender marriage spreads across the land need take note.

  (And if their relationships are crumbling, they can visit www.ourfamily.org, a URL for which we would create a hyperlink if hyperlinks didn’t disappear with dispiriting regularity from this blog, something about which the good folks at Google have some explaining to do.)

Queer Notes from All Over (AZ. Politician Says Same-Gender Marriage = Horse Love)

SOMEWHERE IN ARIZONA, Arizona, March 18 -- A former six-term Arizona congressman (1994-2006) said recently that the November 2003 Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court decision allowing same-gender marriage could lead to a man being legally allowed to marry his horse, Huffington Post blogger Sam Stein noted Monday. 

   The apparently very strange man, who is named J.D. Hayworth, has unfairly overlooked all kinds of animals, and this is sad. One would, if one could, marry one's cat, Comma, but only, one admits, for the tax breaks and the veterinary hospital visitation rights. 

  Perhaps, to be fair, Hayworth agrees. Stein quoted the Orlando radio station WORL as quoting Hayworth. Do you see? It's like a game of telephone. It is possible that Hayworth originally said "man-cat marriage," and a WORL reporter, one who favors horses, changed the quote. It's hard to say.

   Either way, Hayworth said, according to Stein---->WORL, that in its decision, the Mass. Supreme Court defined marriage as "now get this - it defined marriage as simply, quote, 'the establishment of intimacy.'"


          "The Voluntary Union Of"


   The HuffPo's Stein points out in a followup piece there is no such provision in the decision, which defines marriage as "the voluntary union of spouses, to the exclusion of all others." 
   When MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow asked Hayworth about the discrepancy the next day, he said, "You and I can have a disagreement about that," and closed down the interview - not a response to inspire confidence in the man's confidence in his comments. 
    Intimacy, voluntary union of spouses - feh. These are mere details, and Hayworth, like all politicians and crazy people (redundancy), wasn't about to let them stand in the way of a good barnyard yarn the day he spoke to WORL. 

   "I mean," he went on, "I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point - I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."

   This is a syllogism long favored by far-rightist lawmakers and religionists eager to demonize homosexuals. They link homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and bestiality ("I guess you could marry your horse"). Of course, homosexuality - and its open-hearted manifestation, gay and lesbianism - has naught to do with any of those categories. 
   Hayworth concluded: "It's the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal amendment that I support." 
   It should be noted that Hayworth, a Republican, is challenging John McCain for his Senate seat. The comments, then, were uttered in the context of an Arizona political campaign, and are therefore calculated to harm Hayworth's opponent. By saying he "supports" marriage legislation, Hayworth corners McCain: if the sitting Senator does not say he "supports" marriage legislation - in this case in the form of a constitutional amendment legislatively defining marriage, a loathsome concept to some who revere the Constitution in its present, quite workable form - he stands to lose votes on the right-wing fringe. 


    Statement Clarified Comments? No


   Hayworth released a statement the following day clarifying his man-horse-nuptials comments. Oh, wait: no he didn't. He issued a statement standing by the comments, and he did it using every cliched talking point from the Republican playbook. The statement is a case study in the calculated uses of repetition and coded language. Orwell would be proud. Let's have a look. (Cliches are in bold, translation in italics.)
   "[S]adly, the liberal media [Rachel Maddow is a dyke] intent on defending the ultra-leftist, progressive [caring] politicians in Massachusetts [gay], are attacking me [I am running for the Senate] for standing up [I am running for the Senate] once again for family values [vote for me] and for rejecting this absurd court ruling. 
   "But they don't intimidate me at all. [My campaign chest runneth over.] I know right from wrong [I plan to win] and as a staunch defender of marriage [politician who needs votes] I know I can count of millions of supporters [voters] across America [Arizona] to stand with me [vote for me] when our values are under attack [I am down in the polls] and when I am under attack [I am down in the polls] for standing up [I am running for the Senate] to defend those values [hustle for votes]."
   The tally: 
   *Liberal media - 1
   *Ultra-leftist, progressive - 1
   *Attacking me/under attack - 3
   *Values - 3
   *Standing (up, with me, etc.) - 3
   So you see, repetition gets a message across. And Hayworth, a craven nacissist, knows that. Hayworth, a craven narcissist, knows that. Hayworth, a craven narcissist, knows that.


           Knowledge is Power

   Back, for a moment, to the man-horse business. One idly wonders why far-rightist heterosexual lawmakers and religionists show such a wide-ranging and intimate knowledge of pedophilia, incest and bestiality. Is it because these are the hallmarks of the "family unit," which these lawmakers and God-talkers so deeply revere? Alas, we shall never know. 

   One is less surprised at talk of a Constitutional "marriage" amendment. Heterosexuals evidently have so little faith in the institution of marriage that some feel the need to legislate "protection" of it. This does not inspire a deep sense of trust either in them or in their hallowed tradition. 

   Gays and lesbians enthused about getting hitched should take note. 

Queer Notes From all Over (Underwear Occasions Bad Writing Division)

SYDNEY, Australia, March 5 - Reuters Life!, evidently a life-style offshoot of the Reuters news wire service, reports that underwear in a new, "eco-friendly" AussieBum line are composed of twenty-seven percent banana fiber, sixty-four percent cotton and nine percent lycra. 
   The two-graf Reuters Life! report, though alluring, is hazy. It notes that the banana fiber, made from bark weave found in banana plants, "makes the underwear not only lightweight, but also very absorbent...." This sounds promising, but what there is for the underwear to absorb Reuters Life! does not say.
   Lloyd Jones, an AussieBum functionary, noted that if the undies were to contain any more than twenty-percent of the banana fiber, "it might get a bit squishy." Mmmmm. 
   Jones added, according to Reuters Life!, that "wearers did not have to worry about real monkeys, because the underwear does not smell like a banana." 
   What it does smell like Jones did not say, perhaps because, in a monumental journalistic oversight, the Reuters Life! reporter, a woman by the name of Amy Pyett, failed to ask him. Or perhaps she did and her editor, a woman named Miral Fahmy, simply cut the information. Alas, we shall never know. 
   We also cannot know whether it was Ms. Fahmy or a nameless copy-editor who wrote the hed (headline),  but whoever it was should be disciplined severely. It read: "Aussie Underwear Has Gone Bananas."
   And Ms. Fahmy really shouldn't have let Ms. Pyett get away with this lede (first paragraph): "Australian underwear company AussieBum has been monkeying around and the result is a range of men's underwear made with bananas." 
   Not only is that factually wrong - the ingredient is banana bark weave, not bananas - but it is exemplary of the kind of writing that is driving readers away  from newspapers and leading, you see, to the collapse of the Fourth Estate. 
   Here, for curious readers, are some examples of AussieBum underwear. I don't know whether or not they're the banana-bark-weave ones, but who cares? The pictures are lovely. 
   

Queer Notes From all Over (Equal Rights for All Excepting Bisexuals, But They Don't Count Division)

RICHMOND, Virginia, March 11 - The governor of the great state of Virginia has shown that, when it comes to equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people, he is, well, all for equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. 
   There was no mention made of bisexuals, who, as usual, got the short end of the stick, but who, being attracted to persons of both genders, have twice the chance of getting a date on Saturday night, according to filmmaker and former comic Woody Allen, who made that joke, like, seven hundred years ago.
   Gov. Bob McDonnell yesterday directed state agencies of all sizes, stripes and orientations not to discriminate against gays and lesbians, the Associated Press reported today. 
   State Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who, not that this matters, is a Republican, sent a letter last week to state colleges saying they lack authority to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and ordered them to rescind any anti-discrimination that include protections for gays and lesbians. 
   It is admirable that Atty. Gen. Cuccinelli sent a letter. Letter-writing is, alas, a lost art, what with emails, texting, Twitter and the general decline of literacy in America, not to mention the fact that the U.S. postal service is considering stopping Saturday service as a cost-cutting measure. 
   That said, it is the content of the letter with which we must concern ourselves, and that content is, in a word, stupid. 
   Apparently, Gov. McDonnell agreed, in essence if not in word, and that is why he issued his directive. His directive trumped that of the Atty. Gen., because he - the Gov. - has much more power. 
   Before the Gov.'s directive reached far and wide into the psyches of Virginians everywhere, the Atty. Gen.'s letter had occasioned no little amount of agitation among, predictably, gay rights groups and, predictably, Democrats. 
   College students - who, by dint of their youth, vitality and idealism, are the Hope for the Future - rallied, but in a very modern, by which one means troublingly virtual, way. 
   The Washington Post, quoted in the Associated Press report, which was run on the Huffington Post news site - one apologizes, but one is simply too tired, at the moment, to track down original sources - reported that 3,000 people joined a Facebook page titled, "WE DON'T WANT DISCRIMINATION IN OUR STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES!" 
   While that sentiment is to be applauded, the use of all capital letters and an exclamation point is not. 
   The Post further reported, according to the AP by way of the Huffington Post, that one protest was organized by a group at William and Mary College, in Williamsburg, Va., the second oldest college in America, the motto of which is: "We're different, and we like it that way."
   The group, called Queer & Allied Activism, launched a social media campaign, the Post wrote, "urging students to protest on Cuccinelli's Facebook and Twitter pages, and to sign a petition organized by the group Equality Virginia." 
   The group's acronym - QAA - has no meaning, and therefore cannot be called, even by a stretch, clever, but its use of an ampersand is alluring. 
   One certainly applauds the students' efforts, but one is alarmed to hear that students are now protesting from the safety of their laptops while, perhaps, sitting around their dorms or frat houses in their pajamas. One is all for lounging in sleepwear, but one also remembers the days when students actually ventured out of doors to protest injustices. 
   Alas, it is a new day. The thought occurs that maybe the weather was bad. Protesting in the snow, while offering the opportunities, during dull moments, to create snowmen, or even snow penises, can be trying.           
   But recent weather reports, you see, say temperatures have been in the high fifties and low sixties. 
   That's practically balmy for Virginia winters, or seems like it should be. One doesn't know; one has never been to Virginia in the winter or even in the spring, summer or fall, if memory serves, which it generally does not. 
                       --30--

Queer Notes From all Over (Catholic Entrenchment Division)

   First of All is an ecumenical blog. That is, we have no one axe to grind; we are a many-tricked pony. (Insert "trick" joke here.) (Insert "insert" joke here.)
   That said, we are not disinterested in news of all things lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and etcetera, of which there is a dizzying blizzard these days. Herewith, then, we inaugurate a new feature: "Queer Notes From all Over." 
   Be patient; our inaugural post is a long one. (That's what she he said.)


BOULDER, Colo., March 11 - The administrators of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School, in Boulder, plainly are doing their best to practice the love, acceptance and good-heartedness that defined the teachings of the school's namesake.
   A week ago, according to KUSA-TV, in Denver, they refused to let two children re-enroll in the school next year after discovering that the children's parents are lesbians. 
   The Denver Archdiocese sent a statement to the television station that read, "Homosexuals living together as a couple are in disaccord with Catholic teaching." 
   Note the use of "homosexual." This word is used by "heterosexuals" - especially conservative religious ones - as a way of distancing from and dehumanizing the human beings they are discussing. "Homosexual" is a clinical term for those who are sexually attracted to members of their gender. Some "homosexuals" act on that desire. Others don't. "Gay" and "lesbian" people, on the other hand, though by definition homosexual, integrate sexuality into lives lived in full societal openness. 
    Parents of other students have shown an open-heartedness - the true test of spirituality - that apparently eludes Catholic officials. Some have considered pulling their children from the school. 
   "We're all very hurt by this decision," one told KUSA. 
   The station also reports that school staff members have said they are "disgusted by the decision." 


                         Church Has Become More Aggressive


   Yesterday, KUSA quoted Luis Leon, a professor at the University of Denver's Religious Studies Department as saying that, in the wake of the pedophile priest scandals, the Church has become more aggressive about all things homosexual. 
   The no-doubt-well-meaning Professor Leon here makes an unfortunate connection - one widely repeated, including by the conservative religionists - between same-gender pedophiles and gay men and lesbians. 
   Pedophiles are those who have sexual interest in, and sometimes relations with, children. Some pedophiles are oriented to children of their gender, others to those of the opposite gender. 
   But a pedophile's sexual orientation is, first and foremost, to children; the gender of those he or she is interested in is secondary. 
   So to link male-priest-male-child pedophilia with homosexuality is misguided. If, for example, a pedophile male priest had a sexual relation with a female child, would the Church take a more aggressive stance towards heterosexuality?
  
                          "Form Students"


   Archbishop Charles Chaput released a statement, the full text of which is on the KUSA Web site, pointing out, among other things, that the "main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values." 
   One supposes that Chaput is hard-pressed to explain the sexual kerfuffles ("scandal" is such an overused, and therefore cliched, word) stinking up the Vatican just now.


                         "'Two Cuban Lads'" 


   In a March 4 story, the British newspaper the Guardian reported that telephone wiretaps in the paper's possession reveal that a man named Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness (that is, one of the very special ceremonial ushers of the papal household), allegedly spent a good deal of his time having a friend in the choir procure male prostitutes for him, the dirty thing. 
   The chorister, a man named Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, is twenty-nine and hails from Nigeria. He said in a recent magazine interview that he met Balducci ten years ago - that would be at the tender age of nineteen - and added, "He asked me if I could procure other men for him." This locution, "other men," suggests that Ehiem may be referring to men other than himself, which further suggests that he and Balducci may have, to put it colloquially, hooked up. 
   Ehiem added, "He [Balducci] told me he was married [closet case] and that I had to do it [find sex-for-pay partners] in great [great] secrecy [blackmail]." 
   The two evidently made a proficient team. The Guardian notes that the wiretap transcripts show that "over a period of around five months, Ehiem procured for Balducci at least 10 contacts with, among others, 'two black Cuban lads,' a former male model from Naples, and a rugby player from Rome." 
   Ehiem also is alleged to have attempted to set Balducci up with a seminarian - that is, a student studying to become a priest - which seems efficient: why not keep it in-house?
   It is plain from these hookups, then, that Balducci has catholic, if not Catholic, tastes. 


                          Another Kerfuffle  


   Another kerfuffle is rattling the Vatican cages, and this one could scar the Papacy. 
   Pope Benedict XVI, who was known, before becoming God's hatchet man, as Joseph Ratzinger, was Archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1982. German officials are now investigating claims of physical and sexual abuse within the Church in Germany in those years; to what extent Ratzinger knew about the abuses; and, if he did know, whether by remaining silent about them he covered them up, according to a March 11 Associated Press story. 
   In a separate investigation, the Regensberg Diocese told the AP it will look into claims of physical and sexual abuse in a choir led by the Pope's brother, Rev. Georg Ratzinger. So far, the claims appear to predate Ratzinger's tenure as choirmaster.
   Georg Ratzinger said Tuesday that, after taking over the Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir in the mid-1960s, he systematically slapped boys by way of punishment. The AP notes that such punishment, though typical then, was later banned. 


                         Shaping the Good Catholics of the Future


   Yet these claims offer a window into how the Catholic church, a mere fifty years ago, set out to, as Denver Archbishop Chaput so poetically put it, "form students in the Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values."
   The AP story notes that the Regensburg Diocese has, so far, reported two sex abuse cases at the choir, one in 1958, the other in 1959. More than one hundred and seventy students in Germany have claimed sexual abuse at the hands of officials at various Catholic high schools. 
   One man who sang in the choir from 1958 to 1967 said that, at the choir's boarding school, "Severe beatings were normal." He added, however, that Georg Ratzinger "did not belong to the group of more sadistic abusers" - did Ratzinger, then, belong to the less sadistic group? - and that "I do accuse him of covering up the abuses." 
   The Etterzhausen elementary school, in Pielenhofen (pop. 1.3 million), was considered a feeder school for the choir. A man who matriculated there in the early nineteen-eighties told the AP he was slapped, witnessed other boys getting beaten, and saw the school's director hit an eight-year-old boy with a chair. 
    That same man joined the choir in 1982. He has made plain that he personally did not witness or hear about abuse at the choir boarding school. But he did, at the time, tell Georg Ratzinger, then the choir director, about the violence. Ratzinger did nothing. 
   "He chose not to listen," the man told the AP. 
   Incidentally, the Catholic Church is held in low opinion in Germany these days, and not surprisingly. Last year, the Pope lifted the excommunication of a British bishop.
   The reason for the excommunication? 
   The bishop had denied the existence of the Holocaust. 


                            Archdiocese Should Support


   With these facts known, it becomes understandable that the Denver Archdiocese should support the Boulder Catholic school that, in effect, expelled two offspring of lesbian parents. 
   After all, lesbian parents do not physically and sexually brutalize their  children, and therefore cannot be said to conform to "Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values." 
                         --30--
   

Queer Notes From all Over (Elton Thinks Jesus is Gay, Reagan Was a Douche)

    In a recent Parade magazine interview (the link is below), Elton John suggested that Jesus was "... a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems." He added, "Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving.... Try being a gay woman in the Middle East - you're as good as dead." 

   Hm. I am a gay man, so I have upon occasion fallen prey to the desire to claim every awesome figure in human history as One of the Tribe. Some were (Michaelangelo), some may have been (Abraham Lincoln), and some weren't (most of the rest of them). 
   But Jesus? If you took "gay" out of Elton's sentence, it would have made as much sense. So why a "gay man?" 
   If Elton knows, he isn't saying. Yet. (Wait for the backlash - and his inevitable statement addressing it.)
   Elton did say, however, that when he performs "The Ballad of the Boy in the Red Shoes," a song about Ryan White, a lad who very publicly died of AIDS in the 1980s, "I say that this is a song about a time when people in America started getting AIDS and your president, Ronald Reagan, did nothing about it. I get boos. There's a lot of hate in the world."
   Well, there's a lot of historical denial in the world, too. (Just ask Holocaust survivors and their offspring.) The hagiography around Reagan - his sanctification as an awesome figure in human history (though, one is relieved to note, not One of the Tribe) - is nauseating to anyone who lived through the '80s and lost one or (many) more to AIDS. Reagan's administration did exactly nothing for years; he was well into his second term - in his eighth year as president - before he said the words "AIDS" publicly. 
   The man had blood on his hands. Elton John is right to keep that truth front and center, no matter the revisionist magical thinking of those who boo him. 
   (The Parade article is here.)