"The Advocate"'s take on Lawrence King's murder

While nothing can bring gay teen Lawrence “Larry” King back to life, his murder at the hands of a fellow junior high student brought to light the mostly ignored subject of the violent bullying often endured by kids who don’t fit in at school. Given that gender expression and sexual orientation were key elements that made Larry different from his peers, it makes perfect sense for The Advocate to address the story at length, which it does in its April 8 cover story by Neal Broverman, "Who’s to Blame?”

What at first seems like a broad rhetorical question on the cover unfortunately takes a literal turn as the writer searches high and low for scapegoats other than Larry's murderer, including the group home where Larry lived, LGBT advocates, “society,” and even Larry himself.

Casa Pacifica, the group home for abused, neglected, and emotionally troubled children where Larry lived, is blamed for somehow being a safe haven where he was “encouraged to dress as he pleased and live as the person he wanted to be.”

Broverman states that ”(i)t may be beyond the capacity of kids to reconcile a tolerant atmosphere like Casa Pacifica with the xenophobic, conformist nature of school.”

LGBT advocates, particularly the National Center for Lesbian Rights, are also blamed for their “Know Your Rights Guide” and “Queer and Trans Youth in California Foster Care Have Rights!” pamphlet, provided to all LGBT children at the Larry’s foster care facility. The author highlights many of these rights, like safe bathrooms and “the right for kids to wear clothes and hairstyles that fit their gender identity.”

These rights, and even “an illustration of a teenager in overalls and high heels” (pictured above) in one of the guides, are presented as dangerous freedoms taken “to heart in the last weeks of (Larry’s) life.”

Does anyone believe that an illustration and exposure to legal rights are responsible for Larry’s death?

Broverman also comes across as empathetic to Larry’s killer, Brandon McInerney, as children like him “are products of their society, one that simply does not know what to do about a boy in heels,” and further states that “(t)he fact that King, who looked and acted ‘feminine,’ (and) could be as tough as a typical boy must have confounded and infuriated his enemies.”

In this blame game, Larry actually is presented as the tormentor who not only wore heels but would “go chase bullies.” The author refers to Larry as being “bold” about a crush that King developed on his killer, for which King took “action in his typical brazen manner – he let people know, including McInerney.”

Broverman obviously put a great deal of time and effort in painting a much broader picture of who Larry was, who his killer is, and the environments in which they were reared. Simply focusing on these elements could have yielded a great investigative article that elevated the level of discussion beyond a blame game.

Yet Broverman seems to give Larry’s murderer a pass because of the powerful forces of this society, and feels Larry should have known better than to fight them. Would Larry be alive today if he were less bold? If his foster home had been less encouraging? If he had not been presented with legal his rights as a foster child?

What do you think about this story and The Advocate’s take on it?

For your own reference, here is a link to a letter signed by numerous individuals and organizations telling The Advocate how wrong they got this story.