The Drag Queen Posse

Written by Elora Frost, Edited by La Misteriosa.

Dear Mr. Martin:

I have read several comments posted on the Miss USA website regarding retaliatory gay rage.  I have to admit, some of the evidence that some gay men got angry when discovering the ultimate decision regarding proposition 8 is compelling, but I don’t think it’s fair enough to say that some equals the majority.  While these commentators may be looking at what appears to be a large number of members of the GLBT community engaging in a riot, they forget, they don’t know what that percentage of the GLBT community was actually there.  All things considered, it could have been a small fraction of the community who decided to retaliate without thinking rationally and engaging themselves in a peaceful and sensible protest.  I do not condone the violence that they’re using as an example for the attitude or behavior that you claim the MAJORITY of all gay men display, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that it was the majority, because they don’t know the percentages.  In fact, there are some people within the gay community itself that don’t think that gay marriage is a right or an entitlement that is either necessary or should be necessary.  Although they many be a minority within the GLBT community, they do exist.

Additionally, I’d like to point out that it’s not uncommon for people to become enraged when they feel that their rights are being violated.  Our own country’s history has COUNTLESS examples of violent rage being a means through which people express their anger as a result of oppression.  It’s NOT just gay people.  FOR EXAMPLE, if one goes back to our country’s colonial era, one can see several examples of colonials brutally assaulting, tarring (which created incredibly painful blisters of the skin and in some instances death), and feathering tax collectors for a Parliamentary increase in taxes through the Townshend Acts of the 1760’s and the Tea Act of 1773.  Speaking of the Tea Act of 1773, the Boston Tea Party, allegedly lead by Samuel Adams - would be another prime example.  I’d love to see anyone prove to me that Samuel Adams is a homosexual, and, if he or she were to, I’d be proud to call him one, as he was not only a revolutionary but also one of the forefathers of this great country.  Violent retaliation is not limited to the colonial era nor just to gay people.  During Women’s Suffrage of the mid to late 19th century, MANY women were sent to jail for acting out violently in the public arena.  Additionally, during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s in MANY street across this nation in cities such as Newark, Rochester, New York City, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Chicago, a number of African Americans took to the streets to express their anger and frustration for being treated like second class citizens since the abolishment of slavery in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.  As I said before, violent action (although not personally condoned) is a means by which the politically and socially oppressed express their anger, rage, and frustration.  Although oppression cannot be used as an excuse for violence, it can (at the very least) be used as an explanation.

I’d also like to point out that I do not condone the actions of Perez Hilton as an activist or as a judge.  I think as both, he does a complete disservice to the group of people he is purported to represent. However, I’d like to point out that there was a panel of 13 judges on final night.  One judge is not going to make or break a contestant’s placement among the finalists.  Additionally, that question was reviewed and selected by the USA Pageantry governing body prior to final night.  So, as much as we can say “shame on you Perez Hilton for acting unprofessionally in the aftermath of the pageant,” I don’t think we can say “shame on you” for asking that question to Miss California. [Editor’s note: it bears repeating that Mr. Lavandeira’s (Perez Hilton’s) remarks after the show, and the slurs he used, that brought the LGBT community to a lower level when fighting this rubbish to begin with.] The question was pre-approved by USA pageantry, and it was question that could have been asked to any contestant that evening, questions were drawn from a bowl…[Editor’s note: we can only imagine Perez’s glee if, indeed, the question were nothing more than absurd coincidence.) The Californian representative happened to be the contestant to receive that question by mere coincidence.  Furthermore, this is a national pageant, and contestants are competing to become the reigning queen. The queen should be prepared to answer controversial questions with grace, dignity, poise, and honesty. There is no expectation to be anything but honest. In fact, judges usually applaud a girl for her honesty and would much rather have a girl be genuine than shell out something they think the judges would like to hear. HOWEVER, they are required to do so with respect and dignity. It isn’t the fact that she wasn’t in support of gay marriage. She’s entitled to her own opinion. It’s the fact that she 1) didn’t answer the question completely with a “yes” or “no,” [Editor’s note: more like rambling on and on, making incoherent sentences, followed with a half-hearted, impromptu apology] and 2) the manner is which she answered the question alienated a percentage of the American population, which she as Miss USA would be called to represent.

Now, one may argue that same-sex couples aren’t being oppressed or treated as second class citizens and have all the rights that they could ever want through the workplace because some companies offer domestic partner benefits.  HOWEVER, I think it’s important that those who share this opinion become a little more aware of what is the reality for many members of the GLBT community across our country. For example, within my own state of Florida, the laws protecting GLBT couples are not sufficient! Lambda Legal currently has 5 cases in Florida addressing the desire for equal civil liberties and rights: Barros v. Riggall is a case in which plaintiff filed suit against a clinic that refused fertility services to gay men; Gary Day, and C.D.G., and E.D.G., et al v. Social Security Administration, et al, is a case in which plaintiffs are seeking disability benefits for the children of a same-sex couple; Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital is a case in which plaintiff filed suit against the hospital for not permitting her to see her dying partner; and Roach v. Roach n.k.a. Silverwolf is a case in which petitioner is arguing to uphold alimony payments to a transgendered man. There are several more cases like this across the country, such as Bloem v. Montgomery County Board of Elections where plaintiff is trying to repeal a law preventing transgendered individuals from job termination because of their gender identity; Boswell v. Boswell where petitioner is trying to gain visitation rights to see his son; and Hedberg v. Detthow where petitioner is trying to remove custody restrictions that force a same-sex couple to live separately in order to maintain custody of their child. Companies are not required to offer benefits to same-sex couples and hospitals can still invoke their right to deny visitation rights to a patient’s partner. Additionally, within 14 states across our country there are still laws that do not classify violent crimes against a member of the GLBT community solely based on his/her gender identity or sexual orientation a hate crime. Were they to exist, it could create enough moral judgment to make a potential assailant to stop and think before committing a crime of hate. THERE’S PLENTY THAT IS STILL NOT ON THE BOOKS. Although I do not believe that Same-Sex marriage is the “saving grace” to all these currently insufficient laws, it would be a MAJOR step in the right direction and would only assist in the protection of all individuals’ civil rights and liberties.

Lastly, I’d like to say that it’s really easy for anyone to stereotype a group of people of whom you are not a member.  It’s no secret that conservatives stereotype liberals and members of the GLBT community, liberals and members of the GLBT community stereotype conservatives and Christians, Caucasians stereotype African-Americans, Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and Arabs; AND, the inverse also exists.  I think it’s important for EVERYONE to really take a step back and keep an open mind.  While all people are entitled to their opinion and under the First Amendment are able to voice that opinion, EVERYONE needs to keep an open mind and an open heart about a person, a group of people, or an issue of which they are less informed.

Several people have spoken about what is morally true or correct or about righteousness.  I’d like to leave them all with this thought: It is impossible for any human on this planet to have any semblance of an idea of what or who God is [Editor’s note: provided there is a “god,” as we acknowledge those with no faith, and others with no belief system in a god(s)] and what God’s message, if there is a message, to the human race. It is so easy to personify God and make God into something tangible, but one must remember that we as humans are incapable of ever understanding all that God is [if there is one at all]. While I believe that you (the ultra-conservative right wing) are completely entitled to your opinion that your religious faith and practice is inherently correct, you must understand the reasons why you believe that faith and practice as correct. Your faith and your practice are true to you because they are a facet of your ideological background. They are “true” to you. HOWEVER, you must take into consideration that what is “true” to you is not necessarily “true” to the person next to you, the person across the street, the person in a different country, or the person on the other side of this screen. They have a different truth based on their ideological system of beliefs and principles. To say that your “truth” is more “true” than anyone else’s is borderline presumptuous, because no one really knows what is really true and what isn’t true. TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NO TWO PERSONS’ TRUTHS ARE INDENTICAL. Yet, that’s what makes this country so wonderful. You are entitled to voice what is true to you just as I am entitled to disagree. It’s part of our country’s principles of freedom of belief and freedom of worship. The same principle that so many people argue with: our first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I don’t deny that Miss California is entitled to her religious practices and beliefs. WE ALL ARE. Now, taking that into consideration, there are several religious faiths within our country that do not take an opposing stance to same-sex marriage. If we, as Americans, indoctrinate a federal ban on same-sex marriage, not only would that be a complete disservice to the words of Thomas Jefferson who wrote that we are all entitled to “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” [Editor’s note: need we point out the hypocrisy of Jefferson whom himself owned and slept with slaves?], but we would also be creating a law that would completely contradict the very right many fundamentalist Christians argue when defending their religious beliefs and practices! [Editor’s note: we should point out that such a ban would NOT infringe, IN ANY WAY, upon the BELIEFS of fundamentalist Christians, merely that their sphere of influence in politics would be severely curtailed – which it should according to our Constitution. The ban would not dictate what you can and cannot believe, just what you can and cannot legally do to oppress someone else.] It would be an infringement on people’s right to religious practice and believe, as marriage is used as a sacrament in many religious faiths.  Not allowing someone to fulfill one of those sacraments, which is a facet to their religious beliefs and practices, is completely un-American. Is that something that we as Americans are truly prepared to do and/or be? [Editor’s note: as it was mulled over in the New Hampshre Senate, the Governor said he would allow for same-sex marriage, provided it did not force a Church that disavowed same-sex marriages/living from performing those services by edit of law, or through inaction, not allowing those to be served. In this way, their rights would not be infringed, and neither would those of a same-sex couple. The Senate consented to the clause, the Bill was signed, and it becomes law effective January 1, 2010. We happen to think that is a logical compromise, as ideally, there SHOULD be a separation of church and state, despite the obvious facts to the contrary.]

Very truly yours,

Ms. Elora Frost