My Secret Identity

Not everyone will agree with me, of course, but I think it's good news that Archie comics will be introducing an openly gay character in the September 2010 issue of Veronica. I used to read several different comics in the the Archie series as a young fagling, but this is the first time in 40-some years there's been reason to revisit them. I like the way that the gay character, Kevin, casually mentions that he's gay to Jughead (hint, hint?); odd as it may be to say of this kind of comic book, it reminds me of the real world. I suppose I should have the local comics store order me a copy so I won't miss it.

The comments under that Comics Beat story got my attention. Most were positive, but there were the predictable rants from bigots, like the one who complained that "this only promotes sex and I would not let my kids read these… I believe these COMICS are for kids and I dnt want my kids to be havn sex b4 marriage (no, that is not impossible) and kids should b able to b a kid without relating to everyone in the world… not just an opinion, read the Bible!" As other commenters quickly pointed out, the whole Archie world is built on (hetero)sex: Betty's crush on Archie, Archie's lust for Veronica, for example. How a gay Archie character would lead kids to have sex before marriage any more than the straight ones do is not obvious except to the hysterical.

And I loved this guy, who touched base with every cliche in the book, crammed into one paragraph:

Why is it when anyone disgrees with something that is pro Gay, they are critisized as being hatefull and ignorant. We have become a nation that has no morals or convictions! I believe being homosexual is wrong based on God’s Word (the Bible) I also beleive that only God can judge. As Christians we need to stand up and stop being intimidate becasue we dont want be be labeled as horrible people. I know swveral Gay, people, I even have gay family members, I love them all I just do not approve of the lifestle. Just as you have the right to say you like the comic change, I and anyone else have the right to say we dont like it and dont want our children to read it. What happened to freedom of speech! Why am I ignorant or hateful because I have differnt beliefs than you? So many of your comments are so hypocrital! Introducing diffenent nationalities is not the same as introducing a Gay character. A perso is concisded gay because of sexual oreintation. Our society is so sexualized, no wonder Rape, Aids, Abortion and teen pregnancy is so high! I can not letmy son watch videos or certain commericals without him seeing a woman being objectified or shaking her body! I pray for all of you as well as our Country. I pray that God will send someone in your life to show you the light. May Jesus be with all of you even the ones that will write hateful comments. As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord!

(Serving the Lord: dip Lord in egg batter and roll in seasoned flour. Fry in 400-degree oil until crispy; serve while hot, with the beer of your choice. But I digress.)

I especially like the "What happened to freedom of speech!" since freedom of speech not only guarantees one's right to say what one thinks right, but guarantees others' right to disagree vehemently. (This person answered well for the most part, except for assuming that we are "born gay" and a few other blunders.) But then this guy threw in his two cents' worth, with more pruriency about "gay bowel system" which "is so disgusting its symptoms can only be alluded to" and our high numbers of sexual partners (jealous much?), which prompted this whiny and ill-informed response:

I’m sorry, there are so many lies in this quote it’s maddening. I’m gay, I’ve been out for eight years, and I think I’ve dated a total of MAYBE fourteen people during that time. Fourteen. In eight years.

I've pointed out before how stupid people are about statistics. If gay men in Atlanta (the previous bigot's example) had "an average of 60 partners a year" in 1994, that average is built not only on people as pathetic as this commenter, but on those who have many more than 60 partners a year. But he lost any sympathy I might have felt for him when he added that he "goes to a Baptist Church! ... we are a very forward thinking church, in every sense of the word. Towards women, gays, African Americans, etc. (as it should be!) So everyone, please just keep in mind not all Christians are so close-minded." Evidently he doesn't go to a Southern Baptist Church, but anyhow this is just the flip side of his mistake about averages. Not all Christians "are so close-minded," but many are. It's as misleading to stereotype Christians as gay-positive, feminist, and anti-racist as it is to stereotype them in the reverse directions. And it gets worse as he goes along.

Another commenter sensibly pointed out, "How many times will deflecting the attention of girls who want him because he’s a hunk work in stories? And if he’s the only gay in Riverdale, he has no one to date." Still, the caveat is premature, I think. All we've seen so far is the first page of the story. Maybe Kevin will ask Jughead to the prom. And maybe Jughead will say Yes.

My Secret Identity

Not everyone will agree with me, of course, but I think it's good news that Archie comics will be introducing an openly gay character in the September 2010 issue of Veronica. I used to read several different comics in the the Archie series as a young fagling, but this is the first time in 40-some years there's been reason to revisit them. I like the way that the gay character, Kevin, casually mentions that he's gay to Jughead (hint, hint?); odd as it may be to say of this kind of comic book, it reminds me of the real world. I suppose I should have the local comics store order me a copy so I won't miss it.

The comments under that Comics Beat story got my attention. Most were positive, but there were the predictable rants from bigots, like the one who complained that "this only promotes sex and I would not let my kids read these… I believe these COMICS are for kids and I dnt want my kids to be havn sex b4 marriage (no, that is not impossible) and kids should b able to b a kid without relating to everyone in the world… not just an opinion, read the Bible!" As other commenters quickly pointed out, the whole Archie world is built on (hetero)sex: Betty's crush on Archie, Archie's lust for Veronica, for example. How a gay Archie character would lead kids to have sex before marriage any more than the straight ones do is not obvious except to the hysterical.

And I loved this guy, who touched base with every cliche in the book, crammed into one paragraph:

Why is it when anyone disgrees with something that is pro Gay, they are critisized as being hatefull and ignorant. We have become a nation that has no morals or convictions! I believe being homosexual is wrong based on God’s Word (the Bible) I also beleive that only God can judge. As Christians we need to stand up and stop being intimidate becasue we dont want be be labeled as horrible people. I know swveral Gay, people, I even have gay family members, I love them all I just do not approve of the lifestle. Just as you have the right to say you like the comic change, I and anyone else have the right to say we dont like it and dont want our children to read it. What happened to freedom of speech! Why am I ignorant or hateful because I have differnt beliefs than you? So many of your comments are so hypocrital! Introducing diffenent nationalities is not the same as introducing a Gay character. A perso is concisded gay because of sexual oreintation. Our society is so sexualized, no wonder Rape, Aids, Abortion and teen pregnancy is so high! I can not letmy son watch videos or certain commericals without him seeing a woman being objectified or shaking her body! I pray for all of you as well as our Country. I pray that God will send someone in your life to show you the light. May Jesus be with all of you even the ones that will write hateful comments. As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord!

(Serving the Lord: dip Lord in egg batter and roll in seasoned flour. Fry in 400-degree oil until crispy; serve while hot, with the beer of your choice. But I digress.)

I especially like the "What happened to freedom of speech!" since freedom of speech not only guarantees one's right to say what one thinks right, but guarantees others' right to disagree vehemently. (This person answered well for the most part, except for assuming that we are "born gay" and a few other blunders.) But then this guy threw in his two cents' worth, with more pruriency about "gay bowel system" which "is so disgusting its symptoms can only be alluded to" and our high numbers of sexual partners (jealous much?), which prompted this whiny and ill-informed response:

I’m sorry, there are so many lies in this quote it’s maddening. I’m gay, I’ve been out for eight years, and I think I’ve dated a total of MAYBE fourteen people during that time. Fourteen. In eight years.

I've pointed out before how stupid people are about statistics. If gay men in Atlanta (the previous bigot's example) had "an average of 60 partners a year" in 1994, that average is built not only on people as pathetic as this commenter, but on those who have many more than 60 partners a year. But he lost any sympathy I might have felt for him when he added that he "goes to a Baptist Church! ... we are a very forward thinking church, in every sense of the word. Towards women, gays, African Americans, etc. (as it should be!) So everyone, please just keep in mind not all Christians are so close-minded." Evidently he doesn't go to a Southern Baptist Church, but anyhow this is just the flip side of his mistake about averages. Not all Christians "are so close-minded," but many are. It's as misleading to stereotype Christians as gay-positive, feminist, and anti-racist as it is to stereotype them in the reverse directions. And it gets worse as he goes along.

Another commenter sensibly pointed out, "How many times will deflecting the attention of girls who want him because he’s a hunk work in stories? And if he’s the only gay in Riverdale, he has no one to date." Still, the caveat is premature, I think. All we've seen so far is the first page of the story. Maybe Kevin will ask Jughead to the prom. And maybe Jughead will say Yes.

Suffer the Little Children

Still feeling under the weather, but this item caught my attention today: the Denver Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church notified a lesbian couple that their child would not be allowed to re-enroll in a Catholic pre-school he had been attending. Some school staff members expressed their displeasure to a television reporter, but they "asked to remain anonymous" -- wisely, since open disagreement with the hierarchy is a good way to lose your job. (Jesus knows who they are, though, and he's making a list.) What, you think the Roman Catholic Church is a democracy?

There is talk of organizing a protest, which is nice, but it's not likely to have any effect. "One woman leaving Mass said she disagreed with the decision as well. 'I just feel the Catholic Church is a church that should be teaching acceptance and tolerance,' Juli Aderman-Hagerty said. 'I just don't think this is an example of that.'" Naive, isn't she? The Church has the legal right to discriminate in this area as well as others, "legal experts" told journalists.

But you have to remember, the Church had only the child's best interests at heart. The pastor of the parish in question explained in his online column:

If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don't want to put any child in that tough position -- nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don't believe in? It doesn't make sense. There are so many schools in Boulder that see the meaning of sexuality in an entirely different way than the Catholic Church does. Why not send their child there?

Really? The Church is fulminating against gay marriage in pre-school? Still, Father Bill has a point. Why would caring parents send their child to a pre-school run by a hate group that denounces their relationship? Normally I'm not wild about terms like "hate group," but I'm using it here because non-religious groups which agitate against minority groups as the Church does against gays would be labeled hate groups in a heartbeat by nice liberals. I think that if you're going to call Fred Phelps a preacher of hate, you should do the same with Pope Benedict XVI, who has a long record of antigay bigotry, seeking to interfere not just in the lives of Catholics but of non-Catholics and secular society as well, and who can't even bring himself to denounce the pending Uganda law which would execute gay people.

I must say I don't believe Father Bill's claim that he doesn't want to put a child in a "tough position" by denouncing the lifestyle of its parents. But as David Gibson, the writer I've linked to, points out:

Still, critics wondered why any child should be singled out for rejection because of his or her parents, but also why a gay couple was being singled out given that many parents of students at Catholic schools are divorced or remarried or unmarried, or using birth control or living lifestyles that church teaching would also consider sinful.

Moreover, many Catholic schools across the country gladly enroll non-Catholic students, and in some urban areas the percentage of non-Catholic students reaches upward of 90 percent. How such families would fit into the rigorous definition offered by the Denver archdiocese was unclear.

Gibson says that those who disapprove of this decision have "little legal recourse" apart from "public protests." I suppose he has in mind demonstrations with chants and signs. That's true for the mothers of the child involved in this case, but I suspect that if enough other parents were to identify themselves as divorced and remarried, single mothers, using birth control, or practicing other naughty lifestyles that the Church disapproves, so that the school had to decide whether principle trumped tuition, it might have some effect. Or they could simply remove their children from the pre-school. Maybe that would shake things up. But maybe not. Maybe there's a long waiting list and defectors could be replaced easily. The key point is that no responsible parent, regardless of sexual orientation or religion, should be supporting the Roman Catholic Church. Every time you turn around, there's new reason to support my position.

P.S. Roy Ashburn, the antigay California State Senator who was arrested for driving erratically after leaving a gay bar with a date, has come out in an interview on a conservative radio talk-show.

“The best way to handle that is to be truthful and to say to my constituents and all who care that I am gay,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s something that has affected, nor will it affect, how I do my job.”

Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk. ...

Ashburn said his votes reflected the way constituents in his district wanted him to vote, not necessarily his own views. ...

In the radio interview, Ashburn said he is drawing on his Christian faith, and he asked people to pray for him.

He said he does not plan to run for any public office after his term ends this year.

I do feel a little bit sorry for Ashburn -- married, father of four, 55 years old, he's been carrying a heavy burden for a long time. (I feel sorrier for his family, though. You know how politicians exploit their families to get into office -- especially right-wing politicians.) But let me see, he's served in "statewide office" for fourteen years, since the mid-90s. That's a long time after Stonewall, after Harvey Milk, after all sorts of cultural changes that he could not have ignored entirely. He was no kid when he sold himself to people who hated him, so he could be a politician. There were other options available; he chose the lifestyle of a professional antigay bigot, so my sympathy for him is limited. My sympathy and admiration have always gone to people who had the courage to go against the current, or those who suffered for it, sometimes paying with their lives, thanks in part to people like Roy Ashburn.

Suffer the Little Children

Still feeling under the weather, but this item caught my attention today: the Denver Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church notified a lesbian couple that their child would not be allowed to re-enroll in a Catholic pre-school he had been attending. Some school staff members expressed their displeasure to a television reporter, but they "asked to remain anonymous" -- wisely, since open disagreement with the hierarchy is a good way to lose your job. (Jesus knows who they are, though, and he's making a list.) What, you think the Roman Catholic Church is a democracy?

There is talk of organizing a protest, which is nice, but it's not likely to have any effect. "One woman leaving Mass said she disagreed with the decision as well. 'I just feel the Catholic Church is a church that should be teaching acceptance and tolerance,' Juli Aderman-Hagerty said. 'I just don't think this is an example of that.'" Naive, isn't she? The Church has the legal right to discriminate in this area as well as others, "legal experts" told journalists.

But you have to remember, the Church had only the child's best interests at heart. The pastor of the parish in question explained in his online column:

If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don't want to put any child in that tough position -- nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don't believe in? It doesn't make sense. There are so many schools in Boulder that see the meaning of sexuality in an entirely different way than the Catholic Church does. Why not send their child there?

Really? The Church is fulminating against gay marriage in pre-school? Still, Father Bill has a point. Why would caring parents send their child to a pre-school run by a hate group that denounces their relationship? Normally I'm not wild about terms like "hate group," but I'm using it here because non-religious groups which agitate against minority groups as the Church does against gays would be labeled hate groups in a heartbeat by nice liberals. I think that if you're going to call Fred Phelps a preacher of hate, you should do the same with Pope Benedict XVI, who has a long record of antigay bigotry, seeking to interfere not just in the lives of Catholics but of non-Catholics and secular society as well, and who can't even bring himself to denounce the pending Uganda law which would execute gay people.

I must say I don't believe Father Bill's claim that he doesn't want to put a child in a "tough position" by denouncing the lifestyle of its parents. But as David Gibson, the writer I've linked to, points out:

Still, critics wondered why any child should be singled out for rejection because of his or her parents, but also why a gay couple was being singled out given that many parents of students at Catholic schools are divorced or remarried or unmarried, or using birth control or living lifestyles that church teaching would also consider sinful.

Moreover, many Catholic schools across the country gladly enroll non-Catholic students, and in some urban areas the percentage of non-Catholic students reaches upward of 90 percent. How such families would fit into the rigorous definition offered by the Denver archdiocese was unclear.

Gibson says that those who disapprove of this decision have "little legal recourse" apart from "public protests." I suppose he has in mind demonstrations with chants and signs. That's true for the mothers of the child involved in this case, but I suspect that if enough other parents were to identify themselves as divorced and remarried, single mothers, using birth control, or practicing other naughty lifestyles that the Church disapproves, so that the school had to decide whether principle trumped tuition, it might have some effect. Or they could simply remove their children from the pre-school. Maybe that would shake things up. But maybe not. Maybe there's a long waiting list and defectors could be replaced easily. The key point is that no responsible parent, regardless of sexual orientation or religion, should be supporting the Roman Catholic Church. Every time you turn around, there's new reason to support my position.

P.S. Roy Ashburn, the antigay California State Senator who was arrested for driving erratically after leaving a gay bar with a date, has come out in an interview on a conservative radio talk-show.

“The best way to handle that is to be truthful and to say to my constituents and all who care that I am gay,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s something that has affected, nor will it affect, how I do my job.”

Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk. ...

Ashburn said his votes reflected the way constituents in his district wanted him to vote, not necessarily his own views. ...

In the radio interview, Ashburn said he is drawing on his Christian faith, and he asked people to pray for him.

He said he does not plan to run for any public office after his term ends this year.

I do feel a little bit sorry for Ashburn -- married, father of four, 55 years old, he's been carrying a heavy burden for a long time. (I feel sorrier for his family, though. You know how politicians exploit their families to get into office -- especially right-wing politicians.) But let me see, he's served in "statewide office" for fourteen years, since the mid-90s. That's a long time after Stonewall, after Harvey Milk, after all sorts of cultural changes that he could not have ignored entirely. He was no kid when he sold himself to people who hated him, so he could be a politician. There were other options available; he chose the lifestyle of a professional antigay bigot, so my sympathy for him is limited. My sympathy and admiration have always gone to people who had the courage to go against the current, or those who suffered for it, sometimes paying with their lives, thanks in part to people like Roy Ashburn.