Texas Ass-Whoopin’

My initial feelings of relief concerning the Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas sodomy case soon gave way to frustration resulting from a quick perusal of the CNN.com article.

First, there was the teaser, which I did not copy before they replaced it with the announcement of the death of political racist extraordinaire Strom Thurmond (although he claims to have later recanted his earlier beliefs...). But I do remember the words that struck a chord: "homosexual behavior," referring, of course, to sodomy. Forgive me for my subsequent rant; I'm sure a little power/discourse education by Foucault would help right now, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

Anyway, this homosexual behavoir business irks me because, well, sodomy is not a homosexual act. It is one act among many in which some gays engage. It is one act among many in which some heteros engage. Sorry, but it's true. Sodomy does not equal gay. Now, when I finally got to the actual article, I read with great interest the details of the ruling.

Justice Kennedy: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Unfortunately, this is one of two quotes devoted to the winning side of the battle. How about this one by Justice Scalia and signed on to by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas:  "...the court 'has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda. Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda though normal democratic means."

In his dissent, Scalia brought up Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia (miscegenation) and the previous sodomy case Bowers v Harwick, which was overturned by the ruling yesterday.I'm no lawyer but I did get lost while reading the dissent a little bit, but it seems to me that he has a problem with the fact that this even went to court. Because, of course, he has "nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." And besides, it's not the person but their acts: "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.

To be sure, §21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women."  Then why has it become a gay issue? And what about this "homosexual agenda"? What about early gender development in children which ultimately exists to gear little boys and girls everywhere to a life of happy heterosexuality? Isn't that an agenda?

I can't watch television for one hour without heterosexuality being hammered over my head. Beer commercials are the best at promoting a heterosexual existence. That must be why I find myself attracted to men every time I buy a six-pack of Bass Ale (totally kidding). What about the prom? And then there's reality television: "Joe Millionaire"; "The Bachelor/ette"; "For Love or Money," et al. Heterosexuality. I see it everywhere. Every day I am reminded that I am supposed to be straight in order to get in line with everything that's "right" in this society.

Men and women hold hands and mack on each other's faces in parks and on the train. And it's all in my face. And "they" say there is a "homosexual agenda." The argument is getting tired. This was all placed front and center for me to gobble right up and it didn't happen. I'm not straight (shocker, I know). So, there is a heterosexual agenda, but I'm willing to overlook its implications if we'd all just agree that the gays are not out to convert. Please.

There's enough going on in our lives to invite more participants.  Let's turn to other backlash. How about hearing from the Culture and Family Institute? Spokesman Robert Knight: "Thursday's ruling would have 'very real consequences.' Knight warned that it would undermine the legal foundation of marriage, lead to more deaths among gay men from sexually transmitted diseases and lead to schoolchildren being taught 'that homosexual sodomy is the same as marital sex.'

Sex. Marriage. More deaths among gay men from STDs? Does he think sodomy didn't happen at all? Sodomy is not a direct correlation to STDs among gay men. Yes, that is how it is transmitted. But it is language like this that made heterosexuals think that AIDS was/is a gay disease and, therefore, didn't have to worry about protecting themselves. And again, does he think that sodomy only occurs between gay men? And yes, I'm sure that teachers every will be bringing dildos to the classrooms next week, and explaining, detail by detail, the intracies of sodomy.

Ok, I'm done with this. I suppose these types of responses are what I'll be schooled in next fall in my cultural criticism class. Can't wait. Maybe I'll learn to make my "arguments" a little more sound. I know it's a touchy subject and everyone differs. I'm just sick of the "gays are sick and out to screw up the world." It's rather timely that this decision came down days before NYC's pride weekend and those of other cities.

Mary's here. I hoofed it to JFK today. They've done some construction. The little tunnel from the A train leading to the free shuttles is nice. I'm glad I got to see a before and after. And after going back and forth between American's international and domestic terminals (neither of which are sufficiently labeled as such), I finally found Mary's gate. We chilled on the roof and caught up. It's hot as hell in my apartment, which sucks. I sleep now in my boxer briefs and no socks and no blanket.

I'd go shirtless but Paige has stuff in here and I can't be having her walking in with me in that state of being. So I'll just have to wait till she's gone.... I know you all needed to know this...  The landlord told us he had an air conditioner for us, but when I asked him for it today, he said there was a chance it wouldn't fit. That's not cool. So if that's the case, I'm going to see if I can just buy one and have him take it off of next month's rent. It's a tad unbearable. It makes me not want to be here. Mary wants to see the WTC site so I'm going to take her there tomorrow. This means I'll also be able to show her where I lived last year (last month, even). And then I'm going to show her the GF and other points New School. I'm not sure about Saturday yet.

There's the dyke march but that's not till late afternoon. And I'm not sure if we're going to be walking the whole thing. We'll see. Because I have nothing else to say for now, I would just like to remind the Sac dwellers that I'm gonna be in your 'hood in less than a month. I'm arriving in the Bay Area on July 21st and will stay there for a night I think and then be in Sac. Birthday party on Aug. 2. I'm not sure where yet, though. I want to do it at McKinley but you can't drink in parks and that's not cool for turning 30. I'll keep you posted as my mind becomes more clear regarding such things. Goin' to bed.