Penis, Excrement and the Government
It’s not very often that you go to a government meeting and discuss penises “wriggling around in excrement.” Whose mouth did this lovely statement come from? New Hampshire Representative Nancy Elliott. A Republican who is strongly trying to repeal same-sex marriage, Elliott went on an absolute rant in session; so far beyond any political discussion that cameras currently filming were turned off. In the video that’s shown on http://www.huffingtonpost.com, viewers hear from a remote voice off-camera, “Representative Elliot…Let’s keep our discussion directly to the bill.”
In a similar topic of the unusual, Craig Held, a man who is both gay and Republican (oxymoron to current society) attended the Conservative Political Action Conference and received some unique insight on what being a conservative homosexual means for politics at large. While some may consider this a “fluff” piece rather than hard news, I would urge these individuals to think again. Mostly because, how often do we hear of a Republican homosexual’s viewpoints that is actively participating in politics?
Lastly from the article on our wide source list spectrum for today, we see the “Republican source” of Foxnews.com. Sometimes it’s significantly helpful to read from a site that you don’t usually associate yourself with as a learning opportunity. In “Gay Discrimination Bill Will Stifle Free Speech, Advance ‘Homosexual Agenda,’ Critics Say” readers learn that that Student Non-Discrimination Act introduced last month attempts to present equality with LGBT issues in the classroom.
These articles not only demonstrate topics of interests, but also sources from different viewpoints: “liberal” slant, local angle and “conservative” slant. I decided to take the first from huffingtonpost.com because I was intrigued by how one of my good friends, immediately upon hearing my assignment, recommended this website primarily because it was supposed to have a liberal slant. However, I didn’t see a huge bias except for the part when it said that someone told the representative to keep the discussion primarily towards the bill. But to me, that just sounds like keeping the ball rolling on business as usual.
The bill discussed regarded same sex marriage, not asking for personal opinions regarding what said people choose to do in their marriages. Sticking any physical equipment in anyone’s body sounds repulsive to the general population among hearing about it for the first time (present company not included.) I think any reader could deduce that while politics doesn’t mean leaving your backbone behind when you feel strongly about an issue, it also means bringing facts and justice to an issue…not sordidly tossing out vulgar imagery in an effort to publicly demoralize the homosexual sexual encounter.
Metroweekly.com’s article representing a Washington D.C. perspective that provides local news gives what I believe an excellent insight into race-queer living now. We need to find not only the most relevant sources for our articles, but also ones that we are in close proximity to in order to feel a more direct connection and therefore a heavier, vested interest. Held is a junior at Pace University so he feels the pressures and struggles that many LGBT college students feel as well. His ability to transform party lines is admirable, even if others don’t agree with his political affiliation and/or sexual orientation.
Despite this, he still feels hope for change in the Republican party’s attitude toward gay marriage: “I think they’ve realized they need to stop alienating people,” he said, ”Being gay doesn’t mean you can’t be a Republican. True conservatism is for individual rights; it has nothing to do with gay marriage – with not allowing gay marriage” (Geidner, metroweekly.com) I feel that this demonstrates progress and an understanding that it’s possible to live outside the box or in this case, many boxes, in order to truly stand up for what you believe in. Honestly, that’s really admirable and it takes courage to place yourself in a position where you can openly be labeled and judged.
I know it may sound like a stupid question, but why must we always look to supposedly look to “liberal” sources for gay news? I found articles on other sites like Foxnews.com that have been dubbed “Republican” and presented the news in such a manner of opposition that it’s almost worth it to look at the sources that have a bias. They’re necessary in the sense that opposition groups tell you exactly what you’re up against and why they feel that way.
Journalistic preference/bias is by no means a valued or respected practice but inevitably it does happen, so the best way to educate ourselves and gain insight on race-queer living is to learn from those that are so strongly against homosexual rights. This will make a counter-argument even stronger by keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Though they seem distant, all articles are tied together by their unusual factors which make queer news all the more fitting.