Embracing Your Unique Identity

Every individual’s identity is a unique tapestry woven from personal experiences and self-perception. For those exploring their LGBTQ identity, acknowledging and accepting oneself is a journey that requires patience and self-compassion. Understanding that identity is fluid and can evolve over time helps foster a sense of personal authenticity. It’s important to celebrate your uniqueness and remember that there is no right or wrong way to define oneself within the LGBTQ community. Embracing your identity enhances personal fulfillment and connects you with a vast and diverse community.

The Significance of Representation

Seeing yourself reflected in media, culture, and society plays a crucial role in understanding and valuing your own identity. Positive representation of LGBTQ individuals in books, movies, and other media validates experiences and challenges stereotypes. It provides role models that inspire and assure that there’s a place for everyone in the world. Inclusive representation also fosters an environment of acceptance and understanding in broader society, reducing stigma and encouraging solidarity. Representation helps individuals visualize a future that they can aspire to and feel proud of their identity.

Building a Strong Support System

Having a support network is key to feeling grounded and confident in your identity. Friends, family, and community groups can provide a foundation of love and acceptance that supports personal growth. A support system offers a safe space to express yourself, share challenges, and celebrate triumphs. It is important to remember that support can come from various places, not just within your immediate circle, but also through online communities and support groups like Encircle. Surrounding yourself with understanding and empathetic individuals helps in developing a sense of belonging and security.

Navigating Challenges with Confidence

Life comes with its share of challenges, and navigating them with confidence is an empowering part of the LGBTQ identity journey. Understanding your rights and being aware of available resources can help ease any difficulties you may encounter. Facing challenges openly and with a positive outlook can turn obstacles into learning experiences. Engaging with others who have similar experiences can provide strategies and insights that are both supportive and enlightening. Remember, challenges do not define you, but how you approach them contributes to your strength and resilience.

Celebrating Diversity and Community

Diversity within the LGBTQ community enriches experiences and broadens perspectives. Engaging with this vibrant community provides opportunities to learn from one another’s stories and build lasting connections. Celebrating diversity encourages inclusivity and reminds everyone that they have a unique role to play within the community. Participating in events, discussions, and community initiatives fosters a sense of unity and belonging. By embracing the full spectrum of LGBTQ identities, individuals contribute to a culture of support, acceptance, and love that benefits everyone.

Discovering and embracing your LGBTQ identity is a rewarding adventure filled with opportunities for personal growth and connection. Through acceptance, positive representation, and a steadfast support network, you can confidently navigate the challenges that arise along the way. Remember that your journey is one-of-a-kind, and there’s a supportive community ready to welcome you with open arms. Celebrating the diverse tapestry of LGBTQ identities enriches our shared experiences and strengthens our bonds. Embrace your true self with pride and know that your identity is something to be cherished and honored.

Photo Credit

Photo is from Unsplash

Guest Author Bio
Rachelle Wilber

Rachelle Wilber is a freelance writer living in the San Diego, California area. She graduated from San Diego State University with her Bachelor’s in journalism and media studies. She tries to find an interest in all topics and themes, which prompts her writing. When she isn’t on her porch writing in the sun, you can find her shopping, on the beach, or at the gym.

When I first saw the news on the morning of June 12, 2016, it registered first as yet another sad example of gun violence in our society.  The tragic events at Virginia Tech where 32 were killed, Sandy Hook Elementary where 27 were killed, shootings in Fort Hood, Texas and Binghamton, New York that each claimed 13 lives are examples from the last decade that illustrate the swift and permanent impact of gun violence in our modern world. People did these things.  Individuals whose motives are as shrouded in mystery as they are diverse.  We are left to speculate from the wreckage they leave behind.

Oh my god…

As the morning of June 12th went on, I felt unsettled but also unable to focus on what had happened in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.  I knew the basics as reported by the news media.  Nearly 100 people had been killed or injured at a popular gathering spot for the gay community by a man who had taken the time to phone the media and declare his allegiance to Islamic extremists before opening fire on unsuspecting and defenseless people.  The initial reports suggested that it was perhaps the shooter’s religious faith that motivated his actions.

Although I have abandoned any belief in a god at this point in my life, I was raised as a Christian and I must admit to being largely ignorant of the beliefs and religious tenets of the Islamic faith. In the days following the shooting, I tried to better understand what would motivate a young Muslim man to do something like this.  I listened to Muslims and Muslim clerics on YouTube, I read more about the Islamic beliefs regarding homosexuality, and I tried to understand how those beliefs could translate into violence.  With more than 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, I would expect far more acts like these if these beliefs were central to the Islamic faith.  Apparently, much like my experience with Christianity, much is open to interpretation.  The acts of one individual do not necessarily represent the beliefs of other Muslims.

I said in the beginning this piece that I am not just a “straight, white man” and I think it is unfair to stop any description of the Orlando shooter at “a young, Muslim man.”  His religious beliefs may have played a significant role in this tragedy.  But devout Muslims and Muslim leaders around the world were swift and emphatic in their condemnation of the shooting.  While this young man may be associated with Islam, Islam did not in any institutional sense publicly praise or endorse his acts.  In fact, I read with astonishment reports of Christian leaders praising the shooting. To me it seems that this was one man acting on his personal beliefs, not on behalf of any ideology.

Carefully chosen targets

The fact that this tragedy occurred in a nightclub popular with the gay community hit me particularly hard.  I have been fortunate to call many gay and lesbian people “friend” over the years. Many of the people I dearly love have a same-sex orientation and it is through those relationships that I have come to understand the many challenges that gay and lesbian people face on a day to day basis in our society.  I have watched for the last 40 years, sometimes in anger and sometimes in joy, as our society has adapted and become more accepting of those with same-sex orientation. And so the fact that such violence was done to individuals who have more than their share of adversity was particularly upsetting for me.

I am grateful that we live in a culture that allows people of similar interests to gather freely.  Whether it is a gay nightclub or retail store for those who enjoy hunting and fishing, our society is supposed to provide for peaceful and safe places for people to gather.  The fact that this one gunman could enter that nightclub armed as he was is deeply troubling.  Not only could one of my gay or lesbian loved ones have been in that club, I could have been in there with them.  I have been invited to go out with gay friends before and they have always been accepting of me as a “straight.” This was not just an assault on the gay community, it was an assault on gathering places of all kinds.  In a very real sense, it made me feel that none of us are as safe as we might think.

The Orlando shooter may have targeted a gay nightclub for his own reasons but this is not just a “gay issue” for me.  I don’t feel separate from the gay people in my life.  My life is intertwined with theirs.  Where they go, I go.  Their interests are my interests on many levels.  How can I not feel a sense of being targeted when those I love are targeted by hate?  I think we have come too far as a society to try to separate ourselves now.  This was not just an attack on the gay community; it was an attack on us all.

Gunpoint

Guns make me profoundly uncomfortable.  I have never owned one and on the very few occasions where I have had the opportunity to fire one recreationally, the immense power of these weapons terrified me.  Once the trigger is pulled, there is no taking it back.  We are at a point in our culture where the availability of guns is just a reality.  They are simply there.  Whenever I am out in public, I have to be aware that there may be one or more guns being carried by any of the people around me and that, at any time for their own reasons, one of those people could choose to use that gun.  But would more strict gun control laws have prevented the Orlando shooting?  I don’t think so.  It’s more complicated than that.

Technology moves forward with our human evolution.  Guns are just another technology.  In my view, it is not the technology that is the problem so much as it is the application of that technology that we should be concerning ourselves with.  Gun rights activists often make the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and I agree with that sentiment.  Unfortunately, guns do make it remarkably easy and efficient to kill people.  Much like other technologies, guns seem to get better at their job as time goes on.  But I don’t see the value in blaming the tool instead of how it it used.  Why are people shooting people?  It’s a big question but it is much closer to the center of the problem, I think, than just taking the guns away.

I wish it were simple

Over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a lot of discussion about the Orlando shooting.  There has been endless finger-pointing – “It is the Muslims.”  “It is the Gays.”  “It is the Gun advocates.”  “The FBI messed up.”  “The police should have done something.”  “Where were his parents.” and more.  It isn’t just one of those things and yet it is all of those things.  It’s hard to process for me.

I am an atheist.  As such, I don’t believe in a life for me beyond this one.  This life is what I have and I have to make the best of it that I can.  I treasure the people that share this life with me; the black, brown, gay, straight, nerds, rednecks – all of them.  It terrifies me that any one of them could be taken from me in an instant because someone chooses to treat them as a label instead of a human being with a life and loved ones.

Perhaps most terrifying of all is that it could be me.  After all, I am among the “godless ones” that some find abhorrent.  Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, had his reasons for killing and maiming the people he did.  Who is to say that someone else might not find a reason to do the same to me.  Or you.  It is just so mind-bogglingly big and complicated that it’s hard to come to terms with.  But I don’t think that excuses any of us from making the effort.  If we don’t think about these things and try to find solutions, it never gets better.  And I think it has to get better.  For all of our sakes.  I don’t think we can afford to let it be “someone else’s problem” any longer.

The speculation on whether this statement – and others made by the pope since then – signalled a sea change in how the Catholic Church treats homosexuality and LGBTQ persons has been endless and loud. Francis himself claims that as “a son of the Church” he cannot and does not wish to change its doctrine, but he has also made it clear that he wishes the Church both to take a more merciful attitude to those who have been marginalized in the past and to shift its energies away from policing doctrinal orthodoxy and in the direction of reaching out with love – to all humans, not just heterosexual, obedient Catholics.

But it is difficult for the Church, as it is for other churches and other religions, not to judge when much of its doctrine is based on judgment. An insistence on moral absolutism implies that the one insisting possesses the wisdom, the knowledge, and the authority necessary to determine what is right and what is wrong, who is right and who is wrong on every moral issue. Perhaps Francis is seeking to soften this insistence and the often harsh judgments resulting from it; to this Holy Father, it appears, moral absolutism must be tempered with mercy and love.

Meanwhile, in spite of Francis’s apparent encouragement of a more reasonable and more pastoral approach, the Catholic Church in the United States continues to marshal its moral and financial resources, at the front lines of the culture wars, in fierce opposition to the legal enfranchisement of gay rights in that country (while their Canadian Excellencies lost the battle many years ago). However, losses in recent skirmishes – the Supreme Court overturning DOMA and effectively burying California’s Proposition 8; the legalization of same-sex marriage in an increasing number of states through popular vote or legislation; courts in other states declaring illegal constitutional amendments affirming marriage as only between one man and one woman – may be signalling that a more conciliatory approach is not too far down the road. The pope’s often stated requirement that the names of more pastoral clergypersons be put forward for possible appointment to the office of bishop may speed this process.

Perhaps because the Holy Father is a Jesuit himself, the Jesuits in the U.S. have made the first formal public gesture of any substance in bringing the two sides of this issue, as it is being played out in the Church, closer together. Moral philosopher and Georgetown University professor John P. Langan, S.J. has written a thoughtful and very carefully worded piece, entitled “See the Person,” in the Jesuit journal America. In his article Father Langan attempts first to “read [Francis’s] words and actions and offer suggestions about how to construe them so that they form a coherent picture.” Langan believes that the pope, while unwilling (and perhaps unable) to change or reverse doctrine, is attempting to modify the Church’s stance on homosexuality to one that is “more discerning, more compassionate.” The author implies that the pope’s public rethinking of the issue stems both from who he is and from the fact that the “traditional view [of the Church on homosexuality] is now widely regarded as vulnerable, embarrassing and unpersuasive.”

Father Langan suggests that “four important elements should mark a new stance toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” These are humility (both sides must acknowledge what they don’t know); “respect for the dignity of homosexual persons”; acknowledgement of “the problems of perception and trust that complicate our efforts to understand and collaborate with one another”; and patience on all sides.

The conclusion to the article is that there must indeed be a change in the way that the Church treats LGBTQ persons; the “principal change would not be in the teaching of the church on the moral acceptability of homosexual activity, but in affirming and practicing pastoral ministry for persons engaged in irregular or questionable unions.”

It is refreshing and encouraging to witness the courage of a member of the clergy of the Catholic Church in suggesting in a public forum that the stance of his Church on the issue of homosexuality is in need of change. Moreover, Father Langan has clearly laboured painstakingly to present a balanced view of the problem, to mitigate the intransigence, the anger, and the hostility that has characterized this argument and to raise it to the level of a dialogue marked by respect and open-mindedness. Many will see his article as a significant step toward a meeting of Catholic hearts and minds on a delicate topic.

I am afraid that I am not one of the many. First, if Father Langan and others hope that his essay will become the basis for a broader discussion of bringing the Church and Catholic LGBTQ persons closer together, they must first understand that the exclusive use of the word “homosexual” to refer to gay people is going to be an obstacle to fruitful dialogue; anyone who has even marginally followed the gay rights movement over the past 45 years is aware that the term “homosexual” reflects the view that being gay is a disorder and that it will be taken by the vast majority of gay people as both ignorant and insulting.

Father Langan’s article also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the LGBTQ community when he uses terms such as “gay and lesbian agendas,” “alternative lifestyles” and “personal choice” in reference to sexual orientation, and “irregular and questionable unions” in reference to gay relationships. It is common knowledge in contemporary life that being gay is not an alternative lifestyle, unless marginalization constitutes an alternative lifestyle; in fact, as Langan himself acknowledges, more and more LGBTQ people are choosing so-called traditional lifestyles by marrying their partners, raising children, and buying homes in suburbia. And it is even more ludicrous to refer to being gay as a personal choice. Who would consciously choose to be closeted or ridiculed or bullied or rejected by their families and their church?

The most fundamental flaw in Father Langan’s approach lies in what he so valiantly attempts to accomplish: to validate the arguments of each side. While it is admirable on the surface, the problem with this approach is that validating the argument of the traditionalist side automatically invalidates that of the LGBTQ side. What if we were to say to left-handers: “We know that we have treated you badly in the past and that it might be wrong for us to force you to use your right hand, so we are going to offer you more compassion and greater pastoral care. Nevertheless, we still think that you are disordered and we are pretty sure that we should not approve of using the left hand.” The tone and language of Father Langan’s article will lead just about every gay person who reads it to believe this is exactly what he is saying about him or her.

A teaching, a tradition, a doctrine, even a stance is a construct, albeit often a complex one. None of these is a human being created in the image of God. An LGBTQ person is just such a human being, and science has shown that he or she is in no way disordered, unless marginalization, rejection, or demonization has disordered that person. An LGBTQ person is equal in every way – in intelligence, in creativity, in holiness, in the ability to love and in the need to be loved – to a straight person. Any theology, any religious teaching that places this community in the category of “other” is not only flawed; it is immoral.

If Pope Francis is telling the Church through his words and through the example of his behaviour that the first duty of the faithful is to set aside judgment in favour of the practice of unconditional love, there is hope that the Catholic LGBTQ community will find a home in the Church. While Father Langan’s essay reflects deep thought and careful consideration of a sensitive issue, it does not reflect an understanding and appreciation of gay people as whole human beings, which is a necessary starting point, in my view, of accepting us as full members of the Church.

Image Credit

“Visita Papa Brasil” by Semilla Luz. Creative Commons Flickr. Some rights reserved.

It’s Time
When is the right time? Leadership creates the “right time.” The Australian Government recently introduced a carbon tax which many Australians are opposed to but the Government decided it was the right time and it was for the good of the nation and the world at large. I see great parallels here. Isn’t it the right time in a world with much hate and war for there to be expressions of love? Isn’t it the right time for our government and for other governments around the world to be progressive and take a stance against homophobia? Isn’t it the right time to promote a culture of monogamy and strong relationships?

Successive opinion polls have shown that the majority of Australians support allowing same-sex marriage. So why the continued political opposition to same sex marriages? There must be some other rational or calculated reason rather than just a religious one. Are politicians opposed to marriage equality on fiscal grounds because of taxation, superannuation or social security implications? Politicians need to come clean on the real reasons. Even our Prime Minister, who is an atheist, has not supported changes to legislation.

Homosexuality has existed for centuries. You’re not going to stop someone for being gay or lesbian by outlawing it or by persecuting them. Society and, in particular, politicians and the church need to accept diversity and treat people justly, equally and with dignity. I don’t think anyone chooses to be gay – they just are. This issue as it stands is only about marriage between same sex couples. It is not about offspring, surrogacy right etc. These are separate issues to be addressed separately. As a society I think we should agree to gay people being able to be married and we should encourage loyalty, monogamy, and commitment in relationships.

Backward Steps
In Queensland our newly elected State Liberal National Party Government has acted to take legislation backwards by repelling the right for State sanctioned ceremonies. Now same sex relationships can only be registered like you would a pet. These changes have caused great anxiety in the gay community. These changes have happened because some people believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that gay marriages would destroy the institution of marriage. What destroys the institution of marriage is infidelity, divorce, domestic violence and abuse. Rarely do you hear the same people being outspoken on these issues. I believe it is up to the Church to decide whether they hold gay weddings in their own Churches, but I don’t think it’s up to them to deny gay people to wed with a registered civil celebrant.

I am a straight person with a number of gay friends. They are average people – well actually they’re extraordinary people because they’re my friends!. The sanctity of my marriage was never threatened by them. Its demise was due to unfaithful heterosexuals. Now it’s the time for politicians to stop discriminating and make legislative changes for equality. It’s time to get this issue off the political agenda and move on to more pressing issues like education, immigration, population growth, health care, child abuse, employment, military deployment and economic vision. It is time to say down with hatred and yes to equality in love!

The Definition of Marriage – John Corvino

Further Reading:

11 Countries Where Same-Sex Marriage is Legal

Photo Credits

Wedding Cake – Courtesy Of mentalfloss

One of the most basic assumptions in this life as a humans is this binary opposition thing we call boy and girl.  We take it for granted.  When our children are born, they are immediately gendered, swathed in either pink or blue to give the world a signal for how they should be interacted with.  The dreams we have for our children are intricately  tied to their gender.  We put  tutus on two month old girls and baseball caps on six week old boys.  We are offended if someone thinks our child is the opposite gender and we are quick to provide excuses like “her hair is so fair she just looks bald.”

When our children are in kindergarten or earlier, they learn which bathroom they should use and immediately feel the need to comfortably put people into one category or another.  And when they can’t, they feel the need to inquire.  “Mommy, is that a boy or a girl?”  Because we teach them there is boy and girl and nothing in between and that girls can’t be boys and boys can’t be girls.

When I was pregnant with my first born and people would ask me what gender my child was, I would often say “I know this baby has a penis, but I have no idea what gender it is.  I suppose I’ll find out.”  People thought I was off my rocker.  That same child asked me once if someone was a boy or a girl and that was my cue to teach him about transgender.  I asked him what kind of body he has and how he feels inside.  He told me that he has a boy’s body and that inside himself he feels like a boy.  He knows that others don’t always feel the same way, that some people’s bodies don’t match how they feel inside themselves.  He has listened with me to Chaz Bono being interviewed on CBC and last night we both watched Lana Wachowski’s fantastic acceptance speech after she won the Human Rights Campaign Visibility Award.

 Today Lana and her brother, Andy, celebrate the release of Cloud Atlas.  But, as LGBT History Month comes to a close, this acclaimed director of the Matrix trilogy opens up about her journey as a transgendered woman.  Historically, she and her brother have refused media coverage and have pushed to be in the spot light as little as possible.  This is not because Lana is transgendered, it’s because they are private people.  And, it takes guts for a private person to be public.  In my mind, the most remarkable part of her ‘coming out’ is the very act of saying who she is.  She says, “so, I’m at my haridressers … He’s gay, go figure.  And he’s asking me about this event and I say ‘yeah, the HRC wants to give me an award’.”  “Ah, really,” he says, “an award for what?”  I say, “well, I guess kind of for being myself.”  

She ends by thanking her wife, family, friends and the HRC and saying that “this world that we imagine in this room might be used to gain access to other rooms, to other worlds previously unimaginable.”

 I’m pretty sure that neither of my sons is transgendered, but I want them to grow up in a world where there is access to other rooms, to rooms that hold possibility and understanding and acceptance and celebration.  I want them to know that when it comes to this binary opposition thing we call boy and girl, there are no assumptions.

Further Reading:

The University of Victoria has the largest Transgender Archive in the world

LGBT History Month

Lana Wachowski’s inspiring acceptance speech

Photo Credit:

Microsoft Images

Basically, I wanted to be the “gay” Judy Blume. I didn’t want to shy away from the messy, mucky, yucky and unmentionable stuff that happens during the course of those awkward teenage years, either … or the additional turmoil and confusion that LGBT teens face as well. I wanted to touch on all of it, make it relatable and create characters that were realistic and memorable at the same time. The result was my first book, The Trouble with Emily Dickinson. I must have done a good job at getting in touch with my inner “Blume” because the novel won a Golden Crown Literary Society Award for Debut Author. My second book, The Crabapple Tree dealt with bullying. My latest novel, The Education of Queenie McBride is the sequel to my first book and explores the avenue of LGBT teen homelessness.

In my research for the book, I was astounded by the statistics regarding the percentage of gay teens living on the streets. Many programs on television depict gay teens with supportive and loving families. This is a wonderful thing … but it’s not the whole truth. There are just as many teens who are kicked out of their homes by their very own parents simply because they are gay. LGBT teen homelessness isn’t discussed in the mainstream media. In fact, many people don’t even realize that it is even a problem. In writing The Education of Queenie McBride, I set out to accomplish two goals: to write a compelling sequel and also to shed some light on LGBT teen homelessness. I believe that I was successful in doing so.

Lastly, I write these types of books to help LGBT teens by easing their confusion and providing them with something tangible that they can relate to and identify with. I would have loved to have these kinds of books when I was a teenager struggling with my own sexuality. But I didn’t know where to look for them or even how to get them. Times have changed, thankfully. And I am happy that my books are readily available to everyone and anyone who wants to read them. I often visit area high schools throughout Western New York and talk with Gay-Straight Alliance groups. I love interacting with teens, hearing their stories, answering their questions and engaging in conversations about the world and LGBT issues. But I can’t meet with every teen face to face. So, my books help me reach teens outside of the city, across the country and all over the world.

Writing is such a vulnerable profession. As an author, I expose myself with every word of every sentence on every page in every novel. Some people love what is written. Others don’t. It’s just how it works. But those who do resonate with the words that I write, especially LGBT teens, are the ones who inspire me to keep on writing. I write because I love it. And because I can’t imagine doing anything else with my time.

Photo Credits

Book Cover – © Lyndsey D’Arcangelo – All Rights Reserved
Thumbnail – Crop From Book Cover – © Lyndsey D’Arcangelo – All Rights Reserved

Guest Author Bio

Lyndsey D’Arcangelo
Lyndsey D’Arcangelo is a freelance writer and an award-winning author from Buffalo, NY.  She loves music, college basketball, baggy clothes, feel-good movies and the color blue.

“Basically, I’m just an ordinary individual who strongly believes that I can positively impact the world through writing.”

Read Lyndsey’s full Bio

Visit Lyndsey’s Web Site

Follow Lyndsey On Facebook

On August 28, 1971, I was four months old and knew not that 24 years later I would walk down the street in Vancouver, Canada holding the hand of a woman I cared deeply for and having bypassed the closet to do so.

 Also on this day, between 100 and 200 gay and lesbian people in Ottawa and 20 in Vancouver participated in the first large scale ‘gay rights’ demonstration in the history of Canada. Those in Ottawa gathered in the rain on parliament hill with passion, commitment and placards chanting “Two-four-six-eight! Gay is just as good as straight!”  One week earlier, they submitted a 13-page document to the Federal government calling for changes to the law and public policy as they pertained to gay and lesbian people. In Vancouver, there was a parallel demonstration on the steps of what is now the Vancouver Art Gallery, but then were the stairs leading to the Law Courts of British Columbia.

Parliament Hill, Aug 28, 1971

The demonstrations were timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the day Bill C-150 came into effect. The 1969 ominbus bill introduced by then Minister of Justice Pierre Trudeau decriminalized private consensual homosexual activity between people over the age of 21.  The 10 demands included such suggestions to the criminal code as “the removal of the nebulous terms ‘gross indecency’ and ‘indecent act.’” It also suggested that the Immigration Act be amended so as to omit all references to homosexuals and ‘homosexualism.’ The document asked for the right of equal employment and promotion of all government levels for homosexuals. Other recommendations included changes to the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Finally, it demanded “all legal rights for homosexuals which currently exist for heterosexuals.”

 This weekend, in Vancouver, the work of these men and women in 1971 is being revisited and honoured through a conference organized by three Canadian academics, Elise Chenier of Simon Fraser University, Patrizia Gentile of Carleton University and David Churchill of the University of Manitoba. “We Demand”: History/Sex/Activism In Canada is intended to explore links between sexuality and activism and to acknowledge scholarly investigation as one form of activism. The conference organizers encouraged participation from both academics and community activists.  I am attending the conference with my friend and collegue Lara Wilson, University Archivist at the University of Victoria. We are promoting our Transgender Archives.

We Demand, Vancouver 1971

I met and talked with one activist at the conference, Brian Waite, who was in Ottawa in 1971.

 CR: What was it like being one of 100 plus people in Ottawa?

 BW: The majority of men and women, the early leaders of the gay movement, were already left wing radicals. And, then when they came out what could be more natural than to start struggling for their own liberation.

 CR: When you were in Ottawa, what did you think would come of it?

 BW: We certainly knew that the 10 demands that we put forward were just and were right. We couldn’t see the future where they would be put into place, but we did see the struggle and believe that we would win, ultimately. We weren’t doing it just for spectacle. We did realize that we were the beginning of something bigger than us. We were starting a process. We took a lot of experience from the Feminist movement. Even though I’m a man, the women I was involved with at the time politically taught us. We used some of the organizational frameworks and strategies of the women’s movement and took them over into the gay movement, as did the lesbian activists.

 Knowing that the work of both the Feminist movement and the Queer movement is not done, I asked him what should come next. He told me that he had contributed much to the gay movement and felt somewhat retired. But, that if he was to become politically active again, his efforts would be re-directed towards general politics. His concern for the direction and leadership of our majority government leads him to believe that the cliché ‘the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer’ has never been more true. He believes that conferences like “We Demand” help to energize the fight, that academics will go back to their respective universities and spread the word to the next generations. But, he himself wants to fight on a broader political spectrum to challenge some of the growing inequities in the world because he is deeply concerned about what Canada may look like four years from now – for everybody.

 ****************

 Now, I am married to a wonderful man and I have two children. But, who I was when I was 24 shaped me and the people who came into my life then and since have helped to make me who I am. And, now, perhaps because I do have children, the importance of creating a better world is even stronger. Teaching my sons about difference, equality and justice is paramount.

 There is no doubt that the brave people who demonstrated in the streets of Ottawa and Vancouver in 1971 were making history, even if they did not know this at the time. This 40-year anniversary needs to be acknowledged. And yet, Brian’s concern over the state of Canadian politics and, indeed, Canadian lives stays with me.

 Yesterday, I began this post writing through tears as I both listened to and stopped to watch the former NDP leader and Leader, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s celebration of life. Jack Layton  passed away on August 22, 2011. In his last days he wrote a letter to Canadians, the final words of which were “so let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

 At his celebration of life, Stephen Lewis quoted Indian novelist Arundhati Roy who said “Another world is not only possible she is on her way, on a quiet day I can hear her breathing.”

 Jack Layton’s dream for a more inclusive and generous Canada is perhaps what we all – straight, gay, bi, lesbian, transgendered & queer – need to be working towards.

Photo Credit

Parliament Hill, Aug 28, 1971,  Charles Hill speaking; picketers drenched but determined
Canadian Lesbian & Gay Archives – by Jearld Moldenhauer

 We Demand Vancouver, 1971, Canadian Lesbian & Gay Archives

Last week we featured “The Bible Tells Me So. Oh Really? Part 1” This week, Ross Lonergan looks at how the church’s treatment of gay people can contribute to depression, family break-ups and even suicide.

When she was away at college, Anna wrote to her mother and told her that she was gay. Mary Lou reacted to this news by first going to the bathroom and throwing up and “then just going completely underground, not telling anybody and being ashamed and embarrassed.” She wrote her daughter back and told her “some things…that were not very loving.”

This is part of what she wrote: “Undoubtedly the most difficult part of your letter is the gay thing. I will never accept that in you. I feel it’s a terrible waste, besides being spiritually and morally wrong. For a reason I don’t quite fathom I have a harder time dealing with that issue than almost anything in the world. I do and will continue to love you, but I will always hate that.”

Mary Lou thought her daughter’s sexuality was a choice and that “she needed to just get her act together and stop this.”

The letter caused an irreparable break between daughter and mother. Ten months later, before there could be any reconciliation, Mary Lou’s daughter took her own life by hanging herself from the bar in her bedroom closet.

The death of her daughter led Mary Lou to question what she had been taught by her church—that being gay was a choice, for example—and to begin to research the subject of homosexuality for herself.

What she learned was this: “…instead of taking the Bible literally, I have to take it in the context and culture of the day in which it was written.” She has since become an activist for the advancement of gay rights and for the understanding of gay and lesbian people by the church.

Jorge Valencia of the Trevor Project Suicide Hotline says, “It’s estimated that every five hours an LGBT teen takes his life, and for every teen that takes his or her own life, there are twenty more who try. One of the top five reasons why teenagers call us is for religious reasons. They’re feeling there isn’t a place for them and God.”

And Reverend Jimmy Creech of Faith in America says, “The church, because of its teachings that homosexuality is sinful, is wrong, is a perversion, has created the climate in which gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered children growing up feel very much in conflict with the world in which they live. It really shapes their thinking so that they hate themselves, so that they internalize this judgment and condemnation.”

In The Bible Tells Me So, a number of clergy members, including biblical scholars like Reverend Peter J. Gomes of Harvard Divinity School, stress the wisdom and importance of reading the Bible in the context of the period and culture in which it was written. They point out, for example, that the famous prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus—“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall be put to death. Their blood is upon them”—does not exist in isolation from other abominations: eating shrimp, planning two different seeds in the same hole, co-mingling crops, eating a rabbit, and so on.

Moreover, biblical scholarship has determined that in the Hebrew Bible the word abomination “is always used to address a ritual wrong. It never is used to refer to something innately immoral. Eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an abomination because it was a violation of a ritual requirement.”

It is not a stretch to say that selective reading of the Bible, as a constitution, led to the tragic death of Mary Lou Wallner’s daughter and has led to the deaths of many other young people. It has also resulted in closeted lives of fear, self-loathing, and confusion for countless numbers of LGBT teenagers who do not take their own lives. In this age of information, where the truth of both scripture and homosexuality are readily available, the choice of pastors and laypersons to not only remain ignorant but to preach in ignorance is, in the sense of the word as they so like to use it, an abomination.

In A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren suggests an alternative metaphor for the Bible; his suggestion is that we think of the Bible as a library, which is “a collection of documents.” His rationale for the use of this metaphor is that “in a good library you want to present all sides of an issue. A good library preserves key arguments; a good constitution eliminates all arguments.”

A library is a sacred place of ideas. For every argument you find there, you will find a counter-argument, made with the same intelligence, with the same love for truth as the first. This interplay of ideas promotes growth—spiritual, intellectual, and emotional. If we can see the Bible as a library rather than as a constitution, Christian churches and Christian families might begin to have respectful and loving conversations that include the LGBT members of those churches and those families and that allow them to be who they are.

If you have not seen The Bible Tells Me So, I highly recommend it. You can watch it on YouTube in nine parts.

Photo Credits

“No Way, Ken” Bobster855 @ Flickr.com. Creative Commons. Some Rights Reserved.

We found this video “When Did You Choose to Be Straight?” on YouTube and really thought it was worth showing in light of the articles we’ve been running on the “It Gets Better” campaign in support of LGBT youth. These street interviews, conducted by Travis Nuckolls and Chris Baker in Colorado Springs, prove that “asking the right question can be more important than anything you can tell someone.”

href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHYoY&feature=player_embedded