One of the ways most people relax is sitting down to a good show after a long day. Now, with Hollywood becoming more involved in the fight for LGBT+ rights, there are more LGBT+ characters than ever before. However, according to a new GLAAD study, LGBT+ people are still misrepresented (1) in most shows.
In their annual report, they found that there are no transgender characters on primetime TV. Also, the report said only 2% of shows on cable represent these people. There was also a finding that demonstrated the lack of racial diversity in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters in these shows (1).
It is a wonderful thing that shows are now including LGBT+ characters at rates we’ve never seen before, but these people need to be represented well. There are even cartoons, like Steven Universe, that show LGBT+ people in a great way. But yet, some shows seem to stick to the stereotypes of LGBT+ people.
While some shows do hold on to wildly negative views of LGBT+ people, there are shows like Orange is the New Black and Transparent that bring great representation to this community. Transparent is on its fourth season of production, and with the way Jill Soloway is presenting her characters, it’s bound to have more. It is said that Soloway has an authentic way of representing her character’s relationships with sexuality, spirituality, gender identity and mental health, making the show “one of the best television shows ever written” (2).
Not all shows that have a gay or lesbian character approach it the wrong way. Glee came out as one of the first shows that openly dealt with LGBT+ people being bullied, self-doubt, and families that did not approve of the character’s sexuality. So, using Glee as an example, I think that while yes, some shows don’t know how to represent the LGBT+ community, there are a majority of shows trying to improve the way the community is represented.
“All mankind, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”- John Locke
The man quoted above was an English philosopher, who believed that all humans were born with natural rights, and that those rights can never be taken away. Today, we live in a world where these rights are being taken away, or treated as if they were never here at all. A huge national argument going on is the human rights of those who are a part of the LGBT community. It does not matter if “you were raised to believe a certain way, or if that isn’t what God intended.” Those people have to have equal rights to any other human. When I say their rights, I do not just mean their right to be married.
Members of the LGBT community are being abused and violated of their constitutional rights. A few examples are the denial of employment, housing, or health care, loss of custody of children, execution by the state, and many more.
While some people may not morally agree with the lifestyle of the LGBT community, is it necessary to go to such extreme measures just to exclude them? People say they will go to hell, but is it our duty as human beings to dictate the lives of other people? What if gay men and women are in the military fighting for rights to live in this country? Would we still want them to be in hell? Would we still not respect them?
It wouldn’t matter because we probably wouldn’t know at all. In America, we are all about freedom, so when people finally get that freedom, we want it to be taken away? Is it about the freedom, or the moral views? Or is it more about what makes us feel comfortable? We don’t see people arguing about America being a free country as long as everyone is comfortable with the topic.
This is not because God wants it but because it will ease people back into that comfort. I am not saying that you must support this cause in any way, but I believe we need to be more educated of exactly all that is going on. Human rights should be everyone’s rights, no matter who we are.
Recently, there has been some immensely confusing rhetoric coming from the conservative right concerning LGBT rights. Over the past few weeks, perhaps the most high profile story to develop concerning the divisiveness concerning homosexual marriage rights comes out of Alabama. Amid the refusal of the Supreme Court to grant a temporary stay in the debate, the Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy Moore effectively instructed other judges in the state of Alabama to refuse to grant marriage licenses to LGBT couples. His recommendation/demand is in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States refuted previous Alabaman law concerning the definition of marriage as one man and one woman: “Moore’s actions come despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the federal ruling, effectively allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state for the first time on Monday” (Diamond 5).
This is a particularly confusing argument for several reasons. The most obvious reason is because in this wonderful land called America, federal law trumps state law. Regardless of what Moore and his conservative compatriots may think, the law of the land is clear on this very issue. Put simply, as stated in the Supremacy Clause in Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution,
“[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding,”
As stated by the Constitution, which is the legal framework for the entire judicial, legal, and governmental system we all belong to, the federal government always takes precedence over the whims of the state. Hilariously enough, in American history, similar debates about strong state governments have been raised before. Before America has the strong federal government it now enjoys, the founders first tried the Articles of Confederation, which was a government with a weak federal presence but a strong state presence. Keep in mind, this policy had been tried when we had only 13 states, and it failed back in the late 1700’s. Now, with 50 states, the idea that a weak federal government could sustain such a global and economic powerhouse like the U.S. is utterly preposterous. The federal government needs to be large to support the commons, such as public schools and interstate highways. Much like desegregation, Moore wants to frame LGBT rights as a “federal intrusion into state sovereignty” when in reality, the Constitution gives the federal government that very power. If the state government is pushing an ideologically driven agenda of hate and discrimination, it is the job of the federal government to step in and assert its dominance.
The other main problem with Moore’s argument is that he defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Frankly, the notion that marriage is legally defined as anything is facetious at best, and uninformed at worst. For all of their bluster, the Constitution of The United States of America makes no mention of marriage or the definition of it at all. Constitutionally speaking, marriage is left undefined. However, according to Amendment XIV, ratified in 1868, “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Madison 26). Make no mistake, people like Judge Moore are “personally opposed to gay marriage and steadfastly against legalizing gay marriage, [Moore is] insisting that Alabama recognizes the ‘divine’ nature of the definition of marriage.” When the remaining 13 states choose to defer on this issue, and when states and figureheads for clandestine, discriminatory factions like Chief Justice Moore decide to litigate issues like these, they invite the Supreme Court to read the Constitution as it’s meant to be read, as a document written by people, not as a holy book written by a deity. The Constitution, the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Qur’an, along with every other sacred text, are mutually exclusive. Effectively, they’re ensuring their own defeat.
According to most religions, Christianity included, marriage is an act between one woman and one man. Conversely, it’s just as simple to get legally married in a courthouse as it is a place of worship. Marriage is a legal covenant between two people as defined by our society. When two people get married, they may do it in a church, but when they get a divorce, they go to a judge. Marriage is a legal affair that started as religious ritual. As it has evolved along with our society, the constraints of it have changed. At one time, divorce was antithetical to Christian thought. Christians allowed (after much debate) an evolution on that thought of what defines marriage, much in the same way the (so called) definition of marriage will continue to evolve.
Only 13 states still ban gay marriage; 37 states in the Union have sided with rationality and the Constitution that no person (regardless of sexuality) should be discriminated against. There will come a point when those holdout states (it’s no surprise that 8 of those 13 states are in the South) realize that by fighting this battle, they have essentially lost. Much like the equal rights marches of the 1960’s, LBGT rights is the great civil right issue of our day; when historians write about the inevitable victories of LGBT activists, people like Chief Justice Roy Moore and his kind will realize that they were on the wrong side of this issue.
I’ve been looking at a lot of popular online magazines to see what makes them so popular. One of the publications I’ve been keeping up with was Upworthy. It’s a left-leaning, self-described “social media with a mission: to make stuff as viral as a video of some idiot surfing off of his roof.” It sounds like a noble mission statement, but Upworthy takes it a step too far. Continue reading If you’re uncomfortable with this article, I’m uncomfortable with you→
With all of the unrest in Ukraine and Venezuela, a lot of the less partisan news organizations turned their eyes offshore, leaving MSNBC and Fox News to fight over scraps at the bottom of the barrel. For the sake of this timeline, I’m sticking strictly to outrageous events here on the homefront — which makes for a very quiet February on the national scale. Continue reading February Outrage-O-Meter: Defense cuts and anti-gay bills, oh my!→
I’m a gay guy who has a boyfriend on campus. We’ve only been together for a few months. I feel like he doesn’t really care about me, but he does things that he can use to show he does. He just doesn’t say anything, or try nearly as hard as I do in our relationship. Am I being crazy?
Question: “There’s a girl that I like that just got out of a long relationship and doesn’t want to see anyone at the moment. What should I do in order to win her heart or at least make her give me a chance?”
Answer: It depends on why she’s telling you that, whether you’ve asked her out or not and whether or not it looks like she’s trying to friend zone you.
Remember when Chick-Fil-A took center stage as a homophobic, bigoted mega-corporation, and Facebook decided to boycott for two weeks? I’ll admit, I was a part of this boycott because it felt moral to stand on the right side of history. Forgive me for bailing out of the boycott so quickly; it’s very hard to boycott a food chain when there are so few dining options on campus.
The following is a conversation I recently had with a friend of mine.
“What do you think about guys kissing?” I asked.
“That’s f–king nasty. I don’t want to see that s–t,” he replied.
“What about two women?”
“Now we’re talking. That’s fine, it’s different,” he said.
I’m sure you’ve heard things like this several times. Someone voicing the opinion that gay women are fine, while gay men are not. I do not have a problem with many opinions. Although I am gay, if you do not
believe homosexuality is right or moral, I’m completely fine with your view and respect your right to have it.
As the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to pass judgment on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act as well as the infamous Prop. 8, proponents of marriage equality have gained an unexpected ally.
More than 100 prominent Republicans have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court advocating for same-sex couples to have the same marriage rights as straight couples. Among the Republicans signing on are Beth Myers (Mitt Romney’s senior adviser in 2012), Charles Bass (a former Congressman from New Hampshire) and Douglas Holtz-Eakin (an economist who advised John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign). Continue reading From our perspective: Republicans embrace the rainbow→
To those hermits who don’t follow the local or national news, Radford University has been the host of a damning incident involving jackasses messing with one of our own.
Jordyn Addison, 21, is a junior at RU. Last semester when Addison drove home for spring break, his car was vandalized with of homophobic slurs. These slurs read “fag” and “die.” As the semester progressed, Addison’s car was attacked again, but this time on our campus! The second time his car was vandalized, his tires were slit. On the third, his windshield was smashed in. Again, this was on our own campus, and we at Whim are appalled. Continue reading From our perspective: Flamboyant and free→