Short film. Based on award winning story by LGBT fiction pioneer Richard Hall.

B.T.W.

0

 


Aaron Schock, Farewell! 
We’ve had a great ride, but now that you’re officially out, this has got to be our (long-promised) final item about your antics. It’s true, the former U.S. congressman (R-IL) who supplied so much “BTW” fodder has finally done the one thing that could end it all: come out publicly as gay. Of course, the deed itself, posted in a heartfelt statement, seemed entirely superfluous, since his sexual orientation was never in doubt. What made Schock fair game for us was his spotlessly anti-LGBT voting record while in Congress (2005–09). What made him fun—in addition to his great good looks—were the poolside ensembles, the shirtless photo on the cover of Men’s Health (while a congressman), the many sightings at gay bars and strip joints. (However, he says that he did not decorate his D.C. office in the style of Downton Abbey, as widely reported.) Aaron will be missed! But… could there yet be hope for a comeback? He ends his post with a bit of contrition and an intriguing possibility: “The truth is that if I were in Congress today, I would support lgbtq rights in every way I could.”

 

Boys to Men  The last time the Boy Scouts of America made headlines was when their policy of excluding gay youths was being challenged in court by LGBT organizations. This time it’s because the national BSA has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as it faces an avalanche of sexual abuse lawsuits from former scouts. The group representing the plaintiffs, Abused in Scouting, says it has 2,000 clients with claims in the $500 million to $1 billion range. It would be hard to miss the irony of these lawsuits in light of the BSA’s epic homophobia. But perhaps they’re not unconnected. The dogged adherence to its exclusion policy seemed oddly anachronistic in 2010; wouldn’t it have been easier just to allow gay kids to join? But if we assume the BSA knew about the ticking time bomb of litigation, then reasserting the ban on gays becomes more of a legal strategy—akin to the Catholic Church digging in its anti-gay heels amid its own sexual abuse scandal. It would be tempting, if depressing, to conclude that sexual exploitation is unavoidable in an all-male environment of men and boys. Or it could be that the underlying cause is puritanical sex codes that create the conditions for secrecy and abuse, whereas a policy of tolerance and free speech about sexuality could still save both organizations.

To continue reading this article, please LOGIN or SUBSCRIBE

 

You Mean, We’re Better at It?  “How to Make Your Marriage Gayer” boomed a New York Times headline on the front of the “Sunday Review” (Feb. 16, 2020), pointing to an article that took up the entire centerfold. The gist of it was that same-sex married couples report greater satisfaction and stability than opposite-sex couples. Gay couples tend to settle arguments more amicably and share domestic chores more equally, which is to say that one partner—the woman in a straight marriage—doesn’t get saddled with most of the work. This trend is especially pronounced when it comes to child rearing, as both partners in a gay couple tend to spend more time with their kids than straight mothers and especially straight fathers. Other studies have shown that gay couples’ children tend to do better academically and psychologically, which is attributed to the amount of parental attention they receive. The Times piece proposed an intriguing explanation for this advantage. Creating a child for same-sex couples is usually quite a project that involves surrogacy or adoption and typically lots of paperwork and expense; couples willing to go through all this are highly motivated and usually well prepared to raise kids. So, since it was billed as a “how to” piece for improving your marriage, the lesson here seems to be: make procreation more difficult and more expensive!

 

Share

Articles in GLReview

Share Your Thoughts