afhickman

"It takes a village (to make Village People)"

If you're going to spend your air time defending yourself against bloggers' nasty comments, you won't have time to talk about the issues!  It's a sad reality, but when people have nothing substantive to say, they often resort to personal comments and name-calling.  Don't rise to the bait!  I am very glad you're doing what you're doing, even if I don't always agree with you.  We need a forum like this.  I happen to know Hillary Clinton, and I think I know her heart (yeah, like Bush knows Putin!), and I also think it's in the right place on these issues.  I probably won't be able to convince you of that, but I appreciate your giving me the chance to try.  Obama is a cypher to me; he strikes me as an opportunist, but I will vote for him if he's the only one left standing against the Republicans in November.  I don't think I fall into a stereotype in saying this.  Judge not, lest ye be Judge Judy.  or whatever the saying is.

Japhy, yes you are a prettyboy. But it's your pol sci talents that truly make you stand out.

I'm a little bit older than you (I'm 35) but I have noted many of the same issues and gotten a lot of the same criticisms. Not having been an out gay in the peak of the AIDS crisis in the 1980's I've been dismissed many times for not "understanding the struggle".

But you also hit on one of the more prominent problems in our community. Because gay people are so accustomed to having to withstand criticism regarding our sexual orientation, many gays also become incredibly hostile to any criticism of their behavior.

My open disdain for circuit parties, for example, has gotten me accused of "homophobia" on many occasions, as has my admission that I don't like vacationing in P-Town because so many of the guys there ("prettyboys from the bars" and not always young ones) have incredibly bad attitudes. Disapproval of overt alcoholism or drug use is also seen as "homophobic" in a lot of these contexts.

I've actually been flamed in the past for  suggesting that arresting people for having sex in public restrooms is not really "discrimination"!

I don't really care for the term "Post-Gay" (because many people misinterpret it as "ex-gay") but I understand the notion. I'm a suburban gay, although admittedly I chose a suburb with a sizeable gay population (New Hope, PA). One of the key successes of our movement has been that gays no longer have to live clustered in tight urban knots. But it does create a schism between those gays that don't want to go out partying on weeknights because we have to work the next day, and those that live for the club scene and can't go a night without.

Someone mentioned Larry Kramer's name in the heated debate a week or two ago and remarked that his media air time gets truncated. Well, that may be because he's as critical of the gay community as he is of straight persecution of it. He has made many of the same criticisms Japhy made in his vlog. Larry's no young prettyboy from the bars. But his criticism of the circuit party lifestyle is often just as unwelcome from him as it is from a twentysomething.

Previous generations of gays fought first to not be treated as criminals under the law, then for survival against AIDS. My generation fought for visibility and the recognition that gays weren't circus freaks, but regular people. Now we are in a fight for true equal rights including marriage, something that must have seemed like an impossible dream to the members of the Mattachine Society back in the 1950's.

But unfortunately, the current objective of our movement are more complex legally-speaking than getting sodomy laws repealed or getting funding for AIDS research. Victories in the current phase are not going to come in single landmark court cases or with the election of a particular party to majority in the government. It's going to take a lot more focus and patience. Not just showing up at a Pride Parade shouting pro-marriage slogans before going to an after party and doing crystal before finding a trick for the night.

Japhy, your vlog's are fantastic. It's good that you listen to the critics and answer them rather than merely dismissing them, even though that's what they may do to you. Your reasoned words are more significant than any catty response from someone who maybe sees the world too much through the lense of bar culture.

Japhy I totally identify with everything you just said about the gay community.

As a former Hillary supporter, I personally can't understand how remaining Hillary supporters think she can win the nomination at this point without tearing the party asunder. An honest look at the math is all you need. Do they really think superdelgates can overturn the pledged delegate count and not destroy the Democratic party? I'd love to hear a Hillary supporter explain this to me.

Let's just be happy we have had THREE democratic candidates that people could actually be passionate about. Remember trying to be passionate about John Kerry?

PS Japhy, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Vice President options for the candidates. I'm personally pulling for Kansas Governer Kathleen Sebelius for Obama. I think that would smooth things over with the Hillary half of the party since she's basically like Hillary with none of her negatives or baggage.

Love the vlog! I do have to disagree with one thing, though. Your statement that they couldn't get ENDA through the "democratically controlled congress" is a bit misleading. The reason why it wouldn't get through is because it wouldn't get enough REPUBLICAN support, which they need. You make it sound like it's all up to the democrats.

Great, Great Vlog Japhy! As an older gay man it was wonderful to listen to younger gay man who has a sense of history,  a point of view and purpose. I agree with most of what you said. Keep going, keep growing and keep talking!  And I would never call you sweetie .. but I might call you " a love," ..because you are one.

First…I can honestly say I support Sen. Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with gay issues and here is why. Note: for the handful of AE regulars I chat with and who have read this same stuff from me at another forum, please forgive me for repeating myself : )

I think Sens. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical on gay issues…they both have the same stand on gay marriage, they both have the same stand on federal benefits for state granted civil unions, they both have the same stance on protection of gays in the work place. Neither of them are willing to be leaders in the straight community or the Democratic Party on gay issues.

So to pick one or the other over just this one issue is silly because they are virtually the same. They both like our community. They both will work to make sure that we don’t lose any rights. They both will allow our community’s issues be the bargaining item that gets cut to get other things they want. They both talk about us for two or three sentences in their stump speeches. They both are worthy of our votes.

The only things I know about DADT and DOMA is what I read in history books, hear from people older than me and see on the web (like at Wiki). There’s always two camps in the gay community on this…Clinton caved or Clinton stopped something worse from happening. I personally think it’s a mix of the two…he totally caved but I think he also blunted a movement on the right that was building. I wish he had been a bold leader who would have stood up for what was right instead of being a political realist and settling for less.

But I think people who want to bash Bill Clinton(and in turn the Clintons) on this are duplicitous on the issues of political realities. For example…I’m having a discussion on another board about what to expect from the Democrats either one) on Iraq. I don’t think troop withdrawal is a reality any time soon…so I wonder why they feel comfortable saying they’ll get us out in the first 16 months. President Bush has totally fucked the nation on this issue….we’re stuck there. I know that our party is hoping that the threat of pulling out will motivate the Iraqi gov’t to get off their asses but we all know it’s not going to happen. And here is my point…people are telling me that when the time comes and we are in the White House that America will not be judgmental of the blue President because we will acknowledge the political realities of the moment and accept the situation. But then these same people don’t apply the rule to President Clinton and DOMA/DADT.

Japhy, you ask Clinton supporters to name what “the Clintons” have done for the gay community and the same could be asked of Sen. Obama.

I can tell you what I think either of them will do: 1) they will get rid of DADT without actually addressing DADT. With the help of Congress they will lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military…therefore making DADT a moot point 2) they will get worker protection for our community….minus the “T” in our little alphabet. 3) they will get some benefits for couples legally united in states that allow gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships…aka a modification of DOMA without a full repeal of it. 4) we’ll benefit from their selections for SCOTUS…but our issues will NOT be a main reason for their selections. When it comes time to select the next SC nominee the blue party will have other things that are being focused on before gay issues even pop into their minds…education, land rights, political redistricting, church and state…we’ll simply benefit by the fact that they select a liberal judge. We’ll be lucky to hear a Democrat ask them 2 questions on gay issues.

Since you mentioned it I also wanna add that the whole hate for gay Republicans by other gays is annoying. Up until a month or so ago I held a real deep hate for gay men who called themselves Republicans because I did feel they were a lot like the cliché “Jews working for Hitler”. How could they respect, let alone promote and advocate a party that disrespects them so? I know…the Democrats haven’t exactly been showing a lot of solid love for us. Sure, they will block anti-gay votes, they’ll work to shelve damaging legislation…but where are the straight leaders, the allies stepping up and pushing a pro-gay agenda? Where are the straight, power-holding democrats working to change the hearts and minds of those around them?

I think there are two kinds of gay Republicans and I draw these classifications from people I know in my daily life, not just gays Republicans I’ve seen online or in the media. They are… 1) Gay men who really have issues with there own sexuality and see classifying themselves as a Republican as further distancing themselves from being a stereotype (read: Barbra lovin, showtune singing, limp-wristed, swishing fag) 2) Gay men who just have a conservative heart steeped in old conservative values…smaller gov’t, less interference in the individuals personal life, strong military, personal responsibility, fiscal control and traditional values….a.k.a. “Dreamers”.

Finally…fuck Chris and his ageism ‘tude about inexperienced gays being naïve and over opinionated. Your opinion of the gay community is very similar to mine but I’d like to add that a community is what you make of it. I think I’ve experienced more than some of the older gays I know in their 30’s. I pay closer attention to politics than they do and I have participated in more socially conscious gay community events then they have. I went to one circuit party and I’ll never go to another one again. I can’t get into bars but I imagine they’re not any more interesting than hanging out at the GLBTQ center on campus.

Oh...one other thing...what did you think of Brethren: Raised by Wolves (top shelf in the frame...middle towards the left if you're facing the books)

That we still have to actually nominate one of these two and successfully get them elected president.

I think that a lot of people are suffering from the mistaken belief that the question is whether Hillary or Obama will be the next president. But there's this niggling little factor out there called John McCain, who already is already his party's candidate and who stands a very good chance of successfully being elected president.

In my opinion that would be a disaster for us. While McCain is not rabidly anti-gay he's also not really a supporter either. He needs to build political capital with his conservative base and the best way would be to appoint conservative judges. There's a lot of potential openings in the Supreme Court within the course of the next presidential term and McCain could seek to position himself with the GOP by nominating conservative candidates That would put the Court firmly to the Right and likely shut us out of any positive rulings there for years to come.

As is well known, I don't trust Hillary. She's evasive in repudiating many of Bill's acts, especially DOMA, as well as on other issues. I especially liked the one about marching in a Pride Parade "if the Secret Service would let me". For the record, Bill once marched in the funeral procession of the king of Morocco surrounded by vast crowds of Morcocans. The Secret Service wasn't happy about it, but he was there anyway. I refuse to believe that a Gay Pride is a higher security risk.

So, I'm known to be biased. I think that Obama can do better than Hillary can in Middle America while still appealing to the coasts.

I'm not expecting either of them to legalize same-sex marriage so that issue isn't one of the factors I work from. I am interested in seeing DADT and DOMA lifted, and at least moderate judges appointed to the federal courts and the Supreme Court. Obama seems likely to go that far at least.

I had to play the last three minutes twice because I could not believe my ears.  I've been talking about those issues for several years now and I am delighted others are talking about them as well; they need to be addressed.

A Democrat has to be elected at all costs.  If John McCain gets into the White House he will get the chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice.  That justice will be conservative and will likely torpedo any gay rights cases before the court. 

I have no objection to gay people being republicans.  I do object when they undermine gay people as a whole.  Voting for or donating money to John McCain is undermining gay people.  In 2000, George Bush campaigned at a couple gay organizations.  There were stories that he was progressive toward gay issues and look what he's done.  He has been an absolute nightmare.  Don't repeat history.

Hey Japhy, great vlog!

I do feel the need to quibble, though, with the way you phrased your comment about gay Republicans. You comment on how gays are expected to be Democrats before defending gay Republicans as if the two parties are the only choice one ever has. I grew up in Hawai'i, a state where the Democratic party was in power so long that they are the establishment. I saw more than a few elections there where voters turned to a Republican challenger in frustration with the establishment incumbent, which is kinda like turning the radio over to Michael Savage because you're frustrated from listening to Rush Limbaugh gay and race bait. Sure, there are plenty of times when a third party vote won't have a significant impact on an election, but phrasing the choices as only a matter of donkey or elephant just ensures that our choices are very limited, particularly as a group who often has to choose between the hostile candidate and the wishy-washy candidate.

As for gay Republicans, I've become far less understanding of that group as I get older. To some degree that's because of how extreme Republicans in power have become in the past seven years, but the past seven years also have argued against those other conservative principles that are supposed to appeal to gay Republicans. Maybe there's something still valid to those principles, but I think it's become pretty clear that the current choices among Republican candidates aren't able to live up to those principles.

OTOH, I think Evan has a good point about undermining gay people. With the way most people get their news in simple sound bites, a gay organization supporting a candidate with a troubling record gives ample coverage on the issue... one argument that anti-gay groups have been very good at making is to convince gay friendly voters that they're not really hurting gay people... that was a very successful message in the anti-marriage campaigns in Hawai'i and California.

1) Your discussion of the hate crimes bill and ENDA confused the two. The comments that Harry Reid made about not wanting to help the election chances of moderate Senate GOP'ers were made about the Hate Crimes bill, which is, in fact, trans-inclusive (that is, it adds gender identity as an enumerated category).

This is to be distinguished from ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity.

And, don't just take it from me. Compare ENDA, AKA H.R. 3685, with the Hate Crimes Bill, H.R. 1592. http://thomas.loc.gov/

2) As a 25 year old fighting the good (e.g., LGBT-rights) fight, I fully agree with your comments about young people. I quesiton, however, your division of "gay history" into four periods. First of all, the myth of gay people as somehow invisible before Stonewell or even the Mattachine Society has been rightfully relegated to the dustbin of historiology (see, e.g., Chauncey, Gay New York) and does a disservice to pre-Stonewall lives. And it seems to me that the 70s fits equally as well into the third period of history as the first. But more importantly, from an epistomological standpoint, I fail to see what your Great Division of History got you -- it didn't really seem to be buttressing your argument at all, aside from some general notion of progress in terms of LGBT visibility (which I'll grant you). And what about 2003 as an era-defining moment in gay history? The Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, with the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge on its heels, has changed immensely the landscape of LGBT politics both here and worldwide (see, e.g., Poland, Russia, even South Africa).

3) Which brings me to my last point. While I agree with you (as a member of neither political party) that blind devotion to any party does a disservice to the LGBT community, and while I am equally skeptical of arguments that there is only one way to be a self-respecting gay (i.e., Democrat), I agree with the commentators above that one cannot underestimate what is at stake in this election purely from the point of view of the Supreme Court. Civil rights as we know them are almost dead before this Supreme Court. The Lawrence majority is one vote from disappearing. There are real, important issues headed to the Supreme Court -- this is a court that is not afraid to wield its power to turn this country irreperably in awful directions, as the Reproductive Rights movement recently found out.

Think about what this means. 27 states have already written the concept of equality for gays and lesbians out of their constitutions. Anti-gay acronyms -- DADT, DOMA -- still plauge Federal law. Our best hope for the recognition of the full dignity of gays and lesbians as citizens of this country is the federal judiciary. And our only hope for the federal judiciary is a Democratic President.

I respectfully dissent.

[edited for typos and for the omission of a shout out to commentators above]

I like Japhy's blog. I think he's intelligent and on point. I tell you though, if he feels behind the curve at 28 imagine how I feel at 41.

The gay youth of today have it so much better than we did. I'm glad for them.

not only is this guy to the point  and spot on,  he reflects the opinions of many gay men  young and old   who have always had difficulty with the gay community en masse for this very prevelant and pervasive mind set that unless you are in lock step total agreement with the manner in which the " GAY"  agenda is framed you are somehow weird and un-informed.   give me the dissenters

and thinkers every time and lets send the sheep out to the pasture where they belong.

 

keep doing what your doing kid     hopefully people will learn from it.

 

 

Japhy you're brilliant. I wish I had your intellect, charm and good looks. I can understand why a bitchy old queen like myself would be jealous. I think a lot of the criticism is directed at you because you are articulate, and perhaps be able to understand. I mean, I'm not going to talk politics with an actual club queen who's spouting some strange notion he picked up in a bar rag.

So, I thank you for painting a brighter picture of todays gay youth, though I don't consider 28 that young. But I can't help but be bugged by the feeling that gay history is being ignored which is an American problem not a gay one. Our problem with perspective and ability to plan ahead.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. But would vote for Hillary and never Obama. Like her husband, Hillary is sure to nudge the party to the right (where I believe it belongs) which will paint the Republicans into a corner, leaving them with a wider majority of supporters who are homophobic wing nuts. This will leave room for a third party on the left, like the Greens and eventually because of the radical religious policies, the Republicans will be a memory like the Whigs. There hasn't been a Democratic president who can hold the right flank of the democratic party together and still be able to bring in the left wing of the nation. If Obama can do that, more power to him.

But you're right, it looks today like the Republicans have a chance to win again. Obama is as much to blame as Hillary if that happens. The Democratic party is a mess; I more surprised that gay folks support them. Obama will get the nomination. There will be a world crisis just before the election and McCain will be elected to answer the phone.

Japhy, I look forward to your vlog every week, or whenever it is that you get around to doing it.

Your summation of gay history could not be more succinct and correct. I'm only 21 but I immensly enjoy learning about gay history and am appalled sometimes by the gay people (mostly men) of my generation who don't seem to understand or care about how gay people have come to the point where they are today.

I also must say tha even though I am a very proud liberal, my mother still looks at me strangely when I tell her that there is nothing wrong with a gay person being a Republican. Then again we also go at each other because she's for hate crime legislation and I'm against it.

Keep up the great work and can't wait for the next one.

Hey Japhy,

As usual, fantastic vlog!!! I'm also 28, and I completely agree with your perceptions of the cross-generational disconnect among gay men. Part of this comes, I think, from the different political struggles against which those generations in many ways defined themselves. The ACT-UP generation was centered largely on the different lives gay men lead and how those differences demand wider social recognition and acceptance. Demands for access to AZT trials, to end police raids of gay bars, public bathrooms, and parks, and to tolerate deviations from traditional gender norms were all struggles related to how different we as gay men were from the rest of society. These struggles were necessary, and we all benefit from the progress that they eventually began to achieve.

In the generation that followed, however, there was a greater focus on the degree to which we are all the same. Gay leaders and academics questioned the "essentialism" of earlier analyses of sexuality and gender, which were instead reframed as social constructions. Politically, there was a slow mainstreaming of homosexuality, as well, starting in the late eighties and greater visibility of gay men in mass media. But one part of this depolitization of homosexuality was a gradual fracturing of "the" gay community along class, race, and geographic lines. There ceased to be a unifying political struggle that all gay men felt an intimate connection to. Instead, gay men formed many different sexual and sociocultural communities there were largely isolated from each other.

In many ways, we as younger gay men have been bequeathed this fragmented community at a strange political juncture, namely, during the reemergence of a national gay movement for, among other things, employment nondiscrimination and marriage equality. We again face at least a national movement, but one that has not yet unified us politically. Older gay men tend to react to this reluctance as a result of the political apathy of the younger generations, which (quite frankly) may have been true of gay men just a decade or two ago. But this fragmentation of the gay community raises a lot of important existential questions, beyond just our degree of political engagement. Who are we as gay men? Could there ever again be a unifying national gay politics that we can all support? Is intellectual, social, and class-based diversity something we should encourage and support -- or should we subvert this to advance some common political goals?

Gay men haven't faced these questions in quite the same way before, because in the past gay men as a matter of fact all rallied together around common political goals (related to decriminalization and AIDS primarily) or because in the 80s and 90s there was really no national gay agenda or unified political voice. Now, we see two schools of thought, which often fall along generational lines. One the one hand, some see nondiscrimination and marriage issues as part of the mainstreaming of homosexuality -- which they see as vital and good. These pragmatists often advocate piecemeal step-by-step legislative change, emphasizing arguments from the essential sameness of us all and the fairness we are all entitled to. This has been the approach of many older gay men in general, as well as the HRC and most of the other major political organizations. Another perspective is that we really are different, both from the rest of society and as a community, and that the focus on jobs and marriage obscures the struggles our diverse community faces day to day. Instead of going national, these gay men argue for a more local, and often more radical, politics.

Both perspectives are important, I think, and we shouldn't discount pragmatists as selling out or the radicals as naive. Those gut reactions often just come from ageism in both directions. Many younger gay men discount the important struggles of prior generations, and many older gay men resent the privilege into which younger generations were born. But these reactions are counterproductive. Why can't we work together to advance *both* national goals, even if not all of us agree that marriage is necessarily a good thing, for example, *and* acknowledge the unique needs of, say, gay men of color or transgender men or the elderly? It's okay to say that we don't all share the same problems. Urban gay men and suburban gay men are different in so many ways. Transgender men and gay men face completely different realities. But these (obvious) facts shouldn't be used to demonize the HRC, for example. I wasn't for the non-trans ENDA bill myself, but we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot either with our pieties. On the other hand, just like urban young gay men ought to fight for the marriage rights of suburban Iowans (for example), so too suburban Iowans should fight for tolerance of gender deviance, to pick a stereotypical example. Too often I see older, more mainstream gay men mock their more flamy brethren, instead of supporting their choices however different from their own. In some sense, we really are all in this together, and I think a dose of tolerance within the gay community would really advance all of our goals, without squeezing us into one mold.