HubbleBooks

Reproduced with permission from the August 2007 newsletter update of La Gente Unida, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in Colorado.

FEEDBACK TO LA GENTE UNIDA includes the following in response to the July 2007 memo of Donaciano Martinez, who addressed the narrow issue of gay rights:

“Whew, there sure was a lot of caca put out there by the gay doctor who wants others to stop “hijacking” the gay rights movement. As a Chicana lesbian, I was pleased to read that Christopher Hubble noted the male origins of the “gay” word. Male-identified women might not have a problem being considered gay, but women-identified women almost always prefer to identify ourselves as lesbians. Chicana lesbian pioneer, Jeanne Cordova, co-founded the Lesbian Tide newspaper in the 1970s and was on target with her analysis that lesbians were considered “other” in the male-dominated gay movement and in the straight-dominated feminist movement. I for one would never give up my lesbian feminist identity in order to be blessed by men who advocate a one-issue gay rights movement.”

Sonia Candelaria (Fort Collins, Colorado)

—————————–

“I wish you people at La Gente Unida, along with Phil Wade and Chris Hubble, would just realize that the current homosexual “movement” is about and for Rich White Men!!! As a matter of fact, the official chant is: Rich White Men, Rich White Men, that’s what we’re all about Rich White Men. Diversity and inclusivity was something in San Francisco and New York in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It’s over with, dead, get over it. We don’t call ourselves gay and certainly not Queer anymore. We are JUST like our beloved straight idols, who we look like and act like except for what we do in bed. The modern-day rich white men’s gay movement is all about: Up with Coors, down with independence; Up with assimilation, down with Gay Pride and Queer identity. Now a bit more seriously, Lenin once said you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette and I know which eggs I would like to break. Very recently, I have viewed, watched, heard, seen, and/or been the recipient of either anti-Latino/a, anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-woman, or anti-gay bias and ignorance that I have lost most of my patience and willingness to be diplomatic. I am not sure of my willingness to be understanding and polite anymore. After reading Dr. Keith Swain’s opinion, I was so angry and frustrated that I wasn’t even bothered by the anti-gay Christians along the parade route. Was there a difference? Anyway, I wish La Gente Unida continued good work!!”

William Watts, long-time peace and justice activist (Denver)

—————————–

“Donaciano, I enjoyed reading your piece. I am amazed at the naivete and political backwardness of those who don’t understand that the gay rights already achieved was, in large part, accomplished by minority support, and they will never achieve full gay rights without continued minority support. The doctor doesn’t know his own people’s history.”

Jerry Gerash, long-time peace and justice activist (California)

—————————–

“Donaciano, thanks for your introductory essay. I agree with you. Being a one-issue people might mean that rich gay white men might be able to walk hand-in-hand in the fascist society which is quickly forming in America. That certainly isn’t what I want. Thanks for your continuing effort to help people understand.”

Phil Wade, long-time peace and justice activist (Denver)

—————————–

“First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate and welcome the diversity and inclusiveness of the Gay Pride parades/festivals. I think it is wonderful that we can have a day to celebrate with our community, but I do question our solidarity and I certainly feel that the political awareness that once fueled these events has been pushed to the background to make room for vendors. I think this is a result of Americans in general of neglecting political awareness in pursuit of the big screen TV and the luxury SUV. This is very unfortunate for all of us (obviously, look at what is in the White House), but even more so for gay people because the “rights” and “freedom” we have now are very tenuous. That so many states have passed legislation banning gay marriage shows us that straight society will only tolerate us to a degree and will turn on us in a New York minute when we cross the line. I feel that a little more political awareness injected into these events can only help solidify our community. In the 1970’s, gay pride events were mainly political rallies and I remember them giving me a strong sense of solidarity and purpose. I’m not saying we should go back to that 100% — things change, but I think we would do well to remember that there is no strength in numbers if there is no sense of purpose.

Never having been a participant or spectator of the Denver Gay Pride events, I cannot really comment on those, so my comments are based on my own experiences here in Los Angeles. In LA, the Pride Parade/Festival is held in West Hollywood which is a supposedly predominantly gay city. West Hollywood was at one time a district of Los Angeles which was home to large numbers of a variety of gay people. Sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s, West Hollywood incorporated and became its own city with its own rich all white city council which has focused mainly on property values. Today West Hollywood is home to a mostly all white upper class gay people — diversity is gone. Small 2 bedroom, 1-bath homes start at 1 million dollars — this will ensure that the neighborhoods will remain rich and white. All this to say that the LA pride events have become primarily a money making venture for the city of West Hollywood and this follows suit with what is going on all over the country — creating and maintaining the class structure of the very rich and the very poor.

The real issue is inclusiveness. When we succumb to the divisive tactics of our political opponents, we lose the “strength in numbers” edge which is essential to our struggle. When we start separating ourselves from others because they are not like us, we are doing exactly what the larger society has done to us which is what put us where we are today. The ideas of race, religion, etc., are tools of government to distract the masses and keep them separate from each other and fighting amongst themselves so that there is no strong opposition to their enslavement. It’s time to wake up now!”

– Danny Tiarks, long-time peace and justice advocate (California)

******************************

SEE ALSO:

Cultural Resistance a Sublime Necessity

Keith Swain’s rebuttal…

Our “Societies Joyeuses”

La Gente Unida posts responses to Dr. Swain…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

[Note to Readers: Beginning with this post, I am re-editing and serializing Lord Given Lovers on this blog (as part of my preparations to have it translated into Spanish). The original edition of the book is still available here on my website in .PDF form or at Amazon.com.]

******************************

I cry aloud with my voice to the Lord; I make supplication with my voice to the Lord. I pour out my complaint before Him; I declare my trouble before Him. When my spirit was overwhelmed within me, You knew my path. In the way where I walk they have hidden a trap for me. Look to the right and see; for there is no one who regards me; there is no escape for me; no one cares for my soul. I cried out to You, O Lord; I said, “You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living. Give heed to my cry, for I am brought very low; deliver me from my persecutors, for they are too strong for me. Bring my soul out of prison, so that I may give thanks to Your name; the righteous will surround me, for You will deal bountifully with me.” Psalm 142—Maskil of David, when he was in the cave. A Prayer.

The central dilemma challenging lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people (LGBT) today is the failure of our culture to recognize the intrinsic divinity of homosexuality. The results of this failure are devastating. Many LGBT people continue to live in a cultural climate of fear and hatred. We continue to be the victims of hate crimes. The state continues to deny us recognition of fundamental human and civil rights. Although a growing number of us now live openly and honestly, many of us continue to succumb to the closet. Our opponents continue to bludgeon us with the great lie that authentic expression of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the laws of God.

When I came out several years ago, the turmoil generated by believing this lie while attempting to honor my inner truth was almost overwhelming. I was unable to resolve this internal conflict until I discovered the biblical story of the holy union of David and Jonathan in 1 and 2 Samuel. The discovery that one of the central figures in Hebrew Scripture engaged in a same-gender love relationship and that God sanctified this relationship was revolutionary. It enabled me to reconcile my long-held faith in God with my newly realized understanding about my sexuality. It now seems to me that the Bible specifically and affirmatively addresses same-gender love.

Our society’s civil morality is informed by the religious mores of our culture. Until our predominant cultural view recognizes our inherent worth, the LGBT Civil Rights Movement will continue to meet determined resistance. A redefined cultural and societal understanding of homosexuality derived from and supported theologically by the Bible, will have a profound impact on the long-term success of our movement.

Religious homophobes will be inclined to reject and condemn this book. The Bible is the primary weapon they wield to justify their continued intolerance, prejudice and bigotry. Without it, they would be forced to confront the saddening consequences of their misguided teachings. Many of them will likely be unable to do this. On the other hand, fair-minded religious people need to know there is an alternative to the condemnatory and close-minded portrayal of Scripture regarding homosexuality.

Some religious leaders condemn LGBT people by arguing that same-gender love is unnatural and a violation of God’s law. An increasing number of religious scholars have successfully refuted this argument (The Bible and Homosexuality by Rev. Michael England, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Dr. Daniel Helminiak, Ph.D., Jonathan Loved David by Dr. Tom Horner, Ph.D. and Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus and the Bible by Rev. Nancy Wilson).

In the face of this reliable and credible scholarly witness to the contrary, religious homophobes continue to misrepresent several poorly translated verses in both Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament and misuse the Bible to condemn sexual and gender minorities. The compelling fact that the story of David and Jonathan exists demonstrates the inconsistency of these exclusionary arguments with the central biblical message of God’s love for all people.

The Hebrew writers of this story evidently did not share the intense distaste and disdain shown by some modern religious leaders toward same-gender love. If they had, they would have never included the story in their writings at all. Furthermore, Saul, the persecutor of David, is plainly cast as the bad guy in 1 Samuel. David and Jonathan are the noble actors in the drama. This casting provides further evidence of the beliefs and attitudes of the writers, who reveal themselves to be LGBT-friendly. Consequently, the story of David and Jonathan represents biblical precedent for the acceptance of same-gender relationships at all levels of our society.

Innumerable LGBT people continue to suffer from the effects of living in a culture that continues to tell them they are, “intrinsically disordered,” evil and unwanted; that God does not love and accept them exactly as they are. Many are trapped by a false teaching that condemns them to hell if they honor themselves and condemns them to die if they don’t.
I hope this writing helps others reclaim their dignity and self respect and helps them rediscover an awareness of God’s infinite love.

“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish,” (Matthew 18:12-14 (NASB)).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Out Front Colorado recently published my letter responding to Dr. Swain’s Colorado Voices opinion piece. He was given the opportunity to read my letter in advance of its publication and published a rebuttal.

Here is my second piece further elaborating and articulating my objections to the exclusive ideology advocated by Dr. Swain:

Dear Out Front Colorado Editor:

I appreciate that you published Dr. Swain’s response to my letter challenging the ideas expressed in his recent Dr. Swain’s Colorado Voices opinion piece. By claiming that “biologically based affectional orientation” is our “one and only issue”, he clarifies several points about which I could only speculate in my previous letter. Transpeople? You are no longer welcome in this community! Bisexuals? It’s time to get off the fence! Lesbians? Let Showtime beware: you’re welcome to participate but we’ll soon be dropping the “L-word” from our lexicon!

It is perhaps most tragic that Dr. Swain conflates sexual orientation and gender variance with the “fetishes” to which he has raised such vociferous objection.

I didn’t miss the main points of his argument—but instead chose to question one of his foundational premises. Precisely how does each of us define “we”? I define our community as comprised predominantly of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people—and unconditionally oppose Dr. Swain’s dubious efforts to limit that definition.

This isn’t the first time that white male privilege has been asserted in a misguided effort to control the direction of this social movement. In 1953, more conservative members of The Mattachine Society rebelled against the radical direction chosen by its leadership and seized control after the founders resigned. In less than a decade, the society’s national charter was dissolved. Likewise, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF)—one of several more radical organizations inspired by the Stonewall Riots—was not without its own controversies. To its credit, however, the GLF embraced a more expansive vision: the term “liberation” was a rhetorical nod to “Women’s Lib” while “front” was included to express solidarity with anti-war and anti-imperialist resistance movements worldwide.

In the words of the GLF’s statement of purpose: “We are a revolutionary group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject society’s attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of our nature” The GLF stood firmly “against conformity to arbitrary standards,” and “for an open society in which each of us may choose his own way of life.” In 1970, the radical, liberationist GLF helped organize the “Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day March”, one of the earliest events commemorating the Stonewall Riots which eventually evolved into what we now call PrideFest.

Johan Galtung’s “Conflict Triangle” provides a useful frame for assessing our current circumstances. It describes three general categories of violence: overt (direct), structural and cultural. I’m sure most can easily define overt violence—gay bashings, verbal abuse, etc. etc. Structural violence is most often inflicted by societal institutions—marriage laws denying full equality to LGBT people or businesses which offer certain benefits only to married heterosexual couples.

Cultural violence–words, images and ideas which are used to justify and rationalize overt and structual violence–may, however, seem more difficult to identify. When you leave your home for work every morning and are subjected to nearly exclusive heterosexual images throughout the day, you are experiencing a very subtle form of cultural violence. Remaining closeted in public life for fear of ostracism or worse is an example of the devastating effects produced by the pernicious anti-LGBT rhetoric emanating from multiple sources throughout our culture.

LGBT communities remain almost exclusively preoccupied with resisting the overt and structural violence to which we are subjected. In Colorado, we are fortunate that gifted advocates have in recent years succeeded in gaining passage of hate crimes, second parent adoption and employment non-discrimination legislation. Cultural violence, however, remains pervasive throughout our society. I contend that any program which focuses solely on employing political advocacy to resist structural and overt forms of violence against LGBT people will be limited in its effectiveness.

In a culture like ours where sexuality and gender are heavily politicized—where systematic oppression of sexual and gender minorities remains ubiquitous—subversive expressions of sexuality and gender become potent tools in our resistance to cultural violence. When viewed in this context, actions as mundane as holding hands with your partner in public or as profound as “coming out” are very subtle forms of resistance. Historical examples include a myriad of direct action campaigns organized by groups like GLF, ACT-UP, Queer Nation, Soulforce and many others: sit-ins, street theatre, drag queen “kiss-ins”, SHOP (Suburban Homosexual Outreach Project), “zaps” and actions directed at religion-based sources of anti-LGBT teachings.

In this context, PrideFest functions as an annual moment of cultural resistance en masse. Consider: a twenty-something gay man parading down Colfax wearing nothing but angel wings and a thong is engaged in a sublime form of resistance to the cultural violence upon which the entire system of structural and overt violence is founded—by satirizing the dominant set of patriarchal, heterosexist, neopuritanical norms. Provocative? Absolutely… but he harms no one with his display.

Where some see licentious behavior, I see the unrelenting refusal of an oppressed population to cooperate with the agents of their oppression. We should ask why a media outlet beholden to corporate interests would encourage a gay man to discourage other LGBT people from exercising this most compelling method of transforming society.

In my previous piece, I was careful to take issue only with words and ideas that I felt were injurious to other members of this community. I refrained from personal attack—and had hoped for a similar courtesy. In the post-9/11 world, the use of loaded terms like “hijacking” is problematic. For the record, I am a gay man who consequently is a de facto participant in this movement. As one who seeks to adhere to Gandhi’s “soul force” principles, one of my roles is to function as a “nonviolent gadfly” who fosters “constructive… tension” (King). Dr. Swain’s use of the term “hijacking” suggests that he indeed found my words unsettling—so I have apparently succeeded in this purpose. If by “hijacking”, Dr. Swain meant that I renounce and repudiate the white male privilege which undergirds his exclusive vision, then I am guilty as charged.

******************************

SEE ALSO:

Cultural Resistance a Sublime Necessity

Keith Swain’s rebuttal…

Our “Societies Joyeuses”

La Gente Unida posts responses to Dr. Swain…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Keith Swain’s response to my first letter:

First, let me say that I respect all that Mr. Hubble has said. And I’m glad that my column has sparked this needed discussion. Mr. Hubble seems to have missed the two main questions posed by the column: first, what are we attempting to achieve through the gay rights movement in general, and secondly, what role, if any, does PrideFest play in achieving that goal. Simply put, the intent of the gay rights movement is to achieve equal status for those citizens who have an affectional orientation toward others of the same gender. Period. What is clearly not a part of the basic intent of the gay rights movement is to bring equal status to all people who are oppressed. While this goal is admirable, adding sexual minorities and others simply muddies this intent.

If Mr. Hubble wants to establish an equal rights movement for those who enjoy a variety of sexual and social expressions, go for it. But if he continues to insist that being gay is the same as being in drag, or being into sexual fetishes, or being bisexual, transgendered or a woman, he’s wrong. It is essential to understand that there is only one simple thread that ties the whole gay community together: biologically based affectional orientation. That is the one and only issue, nothing more. Mr. Hubble and others, please stop hijacking the gay rights movement for your other concerns. Such distractions simply delay our future success.

******************************

SEE ALSO:

Cultural Resistance a Sublime Necessity

Keith Swain’s rebuttal…

Our “Societies Joyeuses”

La Gente Unida posts responses to Dr. Swain…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“On July 13, Soulforce, Just Spirit, and the Pikes Peak Gay and Lesbian Pride Center organized a marriage equality direct action at the county clerk’s office. For several years now, affirming marriage equality has been a distinct theme at PrideFest in the Springs.

All of this dramatizes the ludicrous laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman in Colorado.” (C. Springs Marriage Equality Direct Action on Google Video)

Laws that bar same-gender couples from equal protection and the full exercise of their Liberty are demeaning examples of religion-based oppression. Gandhi and King taught that we may acquiesce to these laws or that we may confront them using relentless nonviolent resistance.

Thanks to all of our friends in Colorado Springs and elsewhere who participated!

Here’s a link to Fox 21, Colorado Spring’s affiliate with the story:

http://www.kxrm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6788591

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!