Don't cry for me...

When you fall in love with a straight married man, you know you're in trouble.

And I am not going to lie, this is where I have been stuck for quite a while. And, somehow, we have developed a friendship that has allowed me to appreciate him for more than his ridiculous good looks. He is charming, funny, enjoyable to be around.

And straight.

And married.

(I don't know which of those I think is more important - they both pretty much rule out the possibility of relationship.)

So, I'm devising methods of ending our friendship in a way that involves me telling him that I am gay - and that I am fighting a conflict of interests in our relationship. And that it is better for me and him if we stop being friends.

Unless he can think of a way to stop being so damn attractive. Or stop being so charming that I occasionally perceive some kind of flirtation with him.

I've composed an e-mail that entreats him to go out for coffee (he is allergic to alcohol - tragic flaw). Have not thus far sent it. Probably will tomorrow.

I can't wait to be attracted to, and possibly develop a relationship with, somebody that has the possibility of being attracted to me. That will be a good day, when it happens.

How exciting to think about how that might actually happen.

Hopefully I am not entirely delirious.

Untitled, Unposted #2

I never asked to be gay. I'd actually rather be straight. I doubt that anybody in the entirety of existence has wanted so immensely to be normal from the outset of his life - and known that he couldn't be - quite as much as I do.

I will always be different.

Harper you dirtbag!

I'm trying to think of all the traits I like in my politicians - the aspects of individuals that make me want to vote for them.

First is a strong moral compass that is centered around attempts to view the world objectively. In doing so, a great politician would pursue the ideals of equality, liberty, and the creation of a safe society. Also, they would focus on improving the lives of everybody in its sovereign realm, with an interest in social programming that benefits those parts of society that struggle to experience the same levels of equality and economic opportunity as are viewed as desirable. They would be interested in the environment - whole-heartedly interested. They would strive to make international cooperation a possibility rather than just a pipe-dream.

A great politician would have a soul. A wholly human soul.

And this great politician does not exist. I know that.

I also know that the current Canadian political culture does not predispose it to these kind of peoples. I also am beginning to see why the Canadian system of government is more broken than I believed it to be only days ago.

Canadian senate appointments have been contentious since the sixties, but gained prominence in 2004 and 2005 as Harper, then the Primeministerial candidate of the Conservative Party, promised to legislate senate elections for the federal government's Upper House. At the time, I felt the extension of more democratic rights to the people of Canada was quite dangerous - and, in reality, I still do. I don't know if it is valuable to have an upper house whose senators are elected in by the same people that are electing the government into power - I like to think that those appointed by the previous government can act as a measure of accountability on the current government.

But then I saw this today, in the news.

Bob Runciman, one of Harper's most recent appointments to the senate (yes, the same Harper that was elected to office on a promise of changing Senate appointment laws), is not a good politician. The Liberal Party of Canada has explained why by using Runciman's own words.

“We believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Human Rights Code.” - 1994

“Homosexuality is essentially anti-family. It encourages promiscuous sexuality, a self-centred morality and socially irresponsible behaviour that exacts huge costs from society. The law has every right to discourage people from entering into paths that are demonstratively destructive, physically and psychologically, first to the homosexuals and to society itself.” - 1986


This man worked three times to remove homosexuality from the Ontario Human Rights Code during his time as an MLA for Leeds, Ontario. I'm glad he is now a senator in Canada's government.

But this does not surprise me. If we look at who else has been employed by Harper's government and certainly not reprimanded for his beliefs (ok, admittedly, this man was voted in again after that video was leaked - so he is employed by the people... though there are few people that would argue that Conservative's MPs are actually following the interests of the people...).

It is good to know who Harper puts into the government that has been granted, through history, sovereign rule over me. Who knows, maybe the next time Harper attempts to remove my right to marriage he'll have enough conservative MPs and Senators to get it through the house...

A joyous occasion...

Gay rights in Canada are relatively secure at this point. Reasons to cheer are abound when you look at the last 10 years of Canadian homosexual history. We've earned the right to marry, earned the right to adopt. We can start families, grow old together, visit each other in hospitals. Life seems pretty good.

But, every now and then, an event takes place puts any efforts that have been made towards greater equality in jeopardy. In this case, this situation is taking place at home - in Saskatchewan. A trial, in Regina. Where I was born, and have lived my entire life.

Some background information.

In 2008, a local civil marriage commissioner denied a gay couple his services as a individual imbued by the state to perform and legalize civil marriages. His denial was based on his personal moral compass that viewed homosexual marriage as wrong, referencing his religious convictions. He was fined by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal $2500.00 for denying the rights of individuals.

Which sort of brings us to today...

Unfortunately, this isn't half as simple I would like it to be. As an employee of the state, I believe that it is his responsibility to uphold and recognize all the laws of the state, including those with which he disagrees. As such, his denial of marriage to a gay couple because he disagreed with their sexuality is a denial of rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and established by provincial law in 2004 and federal law in 2005. In doing so, he contradicted the proposed ideals of the state, and should be stripped of his right to perform civil marriages ever again.

But, there are other concerns here. Not just for the rights of the gay couple, but also for the rights of the individual (in this case, the Civil Marriage Councillor). His rights, as a follower of a religion, are also guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights of other civil employees with similar ideals as his (somehow, only recognized by the state if they are associated with a "religion") are also included in this.

And so, in the upcoming hearings, many different lobby groups have petitioned for involvement - including individuals, provincial organizations, nation-wide organizations, and local religious groups. The provincial government, in attempting to seem relatively unbiased, has appointed lawyers to argue, on behalf of the crown, for both sides of the legal debate.

As an individual, this case concerns me. But I recognize that the same laws that grant me freedom to marry grant civil commissioners the right to deny marriage if they find a marriage to be contrary to their religious beliefs. I do hope that the state finds that marriage commissioners are to shed their personal beliefs when performing their duties as an employee of the state. But I have to, somehow, entertain the reality that there is a justifiable (and complicated) legal argument that suggests that the rights of the individual truncate those of another.

This is complicated. Just as the case currently taking place in California, it will establish an important precedent. And I will watch, and hopefully attend, this case with eyes trained for sympathy, compassion, understanding, and the careful analysis necessary for legal process.

_________________________________________________

Some Articles

The Leader-Post article previewing the upcoming case.

A second article from the Leader-Post, detailing a bit more about the case.

Also, check out this blog, Slap Upside the Head, for a pointed and humerous understanding of how this entire case has unfolded. Every post references its supporting news articles.

An American article from Slate Magazine about the GOP's use of the "Gay Panic Button."

Another from Slate Magazine about the effects of gay marriage in Scandinavia.

Untitled, Unposted #1

I have many blog postings on this blog that none of you have ever seen. Though I have only 30-some entries, I have more than 100 attempts at entries... Most of them are full, complete articles about my life. My frustrations. And filled with shame.

Which is why they were never posted.

I've been reading through some of recently, and I have found some interesting stuff. Some powerful stuff from times when I was filled with so much fear, self-loathing, and an enormous desire to live in anything but my own skin. Every now and then, I'm going to post some of these...

________________________________________________________

For many years I have tried to live my life as though I am post-gay. I don't need to admit I am gay. People just know. They can see it in my existence, smell it in the air as I walk by. Read it in my eyes, hear it in my voice. And so I have lived that way.

This may be because I have serious human rights concerns with the very process of "coming out of the closet."

And so I have tried to live my life post-gay. Without the benefits of sexual freedom.

How foolish of me. It's like thinking one has already finished the race and was wearing the gold medal when the reality is that there are miles to go, and dozens of obstacles between me and the finish line.

Axis and Allies

I've often mentioned on this blog and to many of my friends the important role that Youtube has had in normalizing my homosexuality as an aspect of my social person. If I haven't done that sufficiently, then kick me in the face when you see me next.

I recently discovered this video on Youtube.



This past week has been a bit rough for me. I came out to a friend of mine in a moment of extreme frustration and weakness, and with only partial intentions of doing it. His reaction has been understanding, but also reluctant. He very strongly believes that homosexuality is a sin. He has directed me to ex-gay ministries. And he does this all in love, not realizing the torment that it has caused me.

My heart has crumbled this week.

I sent him an e-mail yesterday explaining the challenges associated with being gay - how painful it is to grow up alone, isolated, and afraid that something you do is going to out you and put you in danger. I mentioned that we, as homosexuals and other sexual minorities, are the invisible minority; we have some control over when the world more completely discovers our identity.

But let me tell you a bit of a story from yesterday. While I was at work, I noticed that one of my friends was very hurt. She and I are usually rather playful - she is adorable, and fun, and when the world watches her smile it notices what happiness looks like. That being said, when she was hurt, angry and frustrated last night, you can see the air blacken around her. Something was troubling her.

I asked her if she would be willing to cover my lunch break, because she is one of only a few people who has been trained in my position who also works during the evenings and weekends with me. In this regard, she is almost always reliable - she doesn't enjoy what I do, but she is willing to go in there on my behalf. Last night, noticing she was frustrated, I was not particularly surprised when she said no.

But eventually she came up to cover my break, with one of my supervisors (who would have been required to cover my break if she didn't). And she seemed even more frustrated. I asked my supervisor if she could cover for 15 minutes while I went up to the staff lounge with my friend and we discussed what was affecting her so much. She was willing to do that.

My friend and I went to the secondary staff lounge which never has anybody in it, and we sat down, and she told me a story. She says that she consistently felt as though some of the members of the staff were harassing her for not doing her job even when she was fulfilling her duties better than other members of the staff. While other cashiers were welcome to wait for customers at the till, she was always told to redline (meaning, wait for customers) by our supervisor. She was feeling as though she was being watched by the supervisor for when she made a mistake, or when she called in because of illness (which is very, very rare). She felt as though her relationship with her boyfriend was constantly under the scrutiny of the other staff members - as though they wanted to be involved in discussing something she feels is better kept private.

I forgot to mention that this friend of mine is a Pakistani immigrant. And, I 've forgotten to mention that she feels her skin colour is the reason that she is being targetted instead of the other, white members of the staff. That her perception of racism against her was causing her emotional heartbreak and stress, and making her want to move to a new job.

I sat there with her, as her eyes dug into my soul with such extreme sadness, and we both shed a couple tears. I have never felt emotion as powerful as hers.

And it made me much more aware of just how much pain is caused by hatred, misunderstanding, and the perception of both by those who have no option to escape it. Whose skin colour, gender, or appearance, rather than sexuality, sets them apart from normalcy. Who feel helpless, alone, trapped, and powerless as a result of things they cannot help - experiences that I am familiar with.

My heart has crumbled this week.

And then I found this video, and realized that my responsibility as somebody familiar with some of these emotions is not merely to support her by pronouncing to her my acceptance and love for who she is, but also to be her ally. To pronounce my love and acceptance of everything that she is with the rest of the world - so that the world is aware of how unacceptable it is for me, for my co-worker, and for everybody.

If you've the time, I'd recommend this article. It singularly made me much more aware of my whiteness years ago... It is called "White Privelege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh. It gets my most high recommendation.

To Russia With Love!

Today, I discovered women.

Two of them actually. Now, please don't claim that I am over-compensating for years of lost opportunity - this isn't a Californian trial or something, where you get to question my psychosexual development as an individual. Instead, listen to the rest.

The two women I discovered were Russian. And they are acting as lovers whose rights have not only been denied by their own government, but, when they thought they had found a loophole, they found their rights even more disposable.

Two women, Irina Fyet and Irina Shepitko, applied for marriage certification in Moscow as a means of honouring their love. They were rejected; apparently homosexual rights in the planet's largest country are not to be recognized. So, the women came to the planet's second largest country - Canada - to be legally married, where marriage between members of the same sex has been legal since 2005. Thus, in October 2009, these women were married.



Today it was announced that, in the ensuing trial to determine whether the marriage would be recognized. The preciding judge stated that he would "have to uphold the decision made by the registry office in May. Foreign marriages accepted in Russia must involve a couple of opposite sex."

Fyet responded; "We were born here, this is our country, we want to be married in our homeland, Russia."

Russia's homosexual community, though not actively politicalled repressed, is forced underground as a result of widespread social codemnation. Homosexuality was not decriminalized from the Soviet Era until 1993 (two years after the communist state collapsed), but it would seem as though generations of persecuting homosexuality has left a considerable scar in Russia's social acceptance of homosexuals. In 2005, Russia's first gay rights parade in Moscow was broken up by neo-fascists, police, and Orthodox Christians.

It order to achieve any degree of state recognition for their love (and the rights that would result), Fyet and Shepitko will have to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, who have not thus far shown their favour or disfavour with the extension of homosexual rights. A final ruling can take as long as 5 years.

Just for love to be recognized. 5 years.

__________________________________________________

Love is an immensely rare moment. Not everybody gets to experience it. It is a shame upon humanity that, when it is felt, it is destroyed by our neighbours through the impersonal and systematic powers of the law.

This case reminds me of Rita Mae Brown.

"No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody."

__________________________________________________

I've asked this of some friends over the past week that I have met through Gay Family Values; does political persecution have degrees? And if so, at which point is one allowed to apply for political refugee status from one country to the next? Does it have to be illegal to be gay (as in almost every African state)? Or illegal to live in some neighbourhoods (as in many Caribbean nations)? Or illegal to marry? Canada could accept all of these persons as refugees because they are not permitted to live a life equal to that experienced by their neighbours - it is a reality that hurts everyday for homosexuals around the world. Does Canada have a responsibility to act as a political (if not a social) sanctuary from all forms of persecution?


Please note: I'd really be interested in discussing the philosophy of human rights; whenever the idea of "rights" comes up, I'm often conflicted by this sensativity towards a politically determined social reality (Rousseau, you genius, you were right again!). But that can't happen right now.