The Olympic Dream

These past two weeks I have spent a great deal of time watching sport. The Winter Olympics somehow draw my attention away from everything else going on in my life and focus me on the accomplishments of athletes that I don't know at all. But the past couple days of the Olympics, despite Canada's incredible successes, have been quite frustrating for me. Because of women.

I often wonder if women are fully aware of how frequently they are objectified by men. Particularly those women who are on television - the ones that, somehow, we are convinced don't really exist. We (well, many men) talk about them as they perform their greatest skills for us; we say things that we would never say to their face, and somehow think this is ok.

But, this post is hardly about the Olympics, hardly about women, and certainly not about television. Like all other things on this blog, this post is about me - and how I have had to traverse the aisles of heterosexuality over the past couple weeks listening to my friends and my brother rave about the hot Canadian women's curling team, the ugly Finnish hockey team, and the incredible body of Lindsey Vonn.

There are times that it seems like a dick-waving competition to me at times. Like, "look at me, I still have a sex-drive, and so do you, and are drive is similar, so lets talk about it really loudly."

The story I am about to share with you is not a dick-waving competition so much as it was a subtle moment in a hetero-sexist environment that always reminds me that I am not like the rest of this planet.

Last night I was at a local bar with two close friends of mine. One is aware of my sexuality, the other isn't. While discussing the Olympics (it is the topic that has been on everybody's hearts and mind for the past two weeks), they manage to get onto the topic of Canada's two-woman bobsledding team. They managed to comment on their physical appearance, and both admitted (with more courtesy than most I have heard) that they were attracted to these athletes. And they discussed this for quite some time.

And I was quiet - for the 5 minute conversation on how attractive women in tight spandex suits are.

The entire time wishing I could chime in on what I thought about the two-man bobsledders. But I didn't, for fear of how the people sitting around us would act. And because I am very capable, and well-trained, in the game of hiding my sexuality from the world as the world discusses theirs. Because I have never really been able to talk about sexual desire with men before. And because the pub that we were in is, like most pubs, equally male-centric as it is beer-centric. Because I don't mind people talking about their sexual attractions, I just wish I could do so. Fearlessly.


After, while talking with my friend that knows that I am gay, I shared my momentary discomfort from when the two of them had discussed the physical assets of some women on some athletic team participating in some kind of big-deal international competition of sports. I told him I felt trapped in silence - as though I was choking on words that I wanted to share but couldn't.

And I don't think he understood. Because he responded by saying that he wanted to have me jump into these conversations... so that he could make-fun of me for my input. Offer some kind of humorous response.

I appreciate that friends make fun of each other - but all I could think was, 'but, you didn't make fun of our friend for his moment of sexual vanity...'


Like I said, a story of just one of those many reminders I experience everyday telling me that I am of the "other". I am not of this world.

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.