Once upon a time there was a little girl named Rosie. She discovered that when she said funny things, people laughed merrily and felt good. This made Rosie feel good, too.
When she grew up, Rosie became a comedian. That’s a person who stands in front of an audience and makes the audience laugh. If the audience doesn’t laugh, the comedian doesn’t eat. But Rosie made her audiences laugh. She ate well and frequently, a condition upon which some of the meaner townspeople of New York and Hollywood commented.
She was so successful at making audiences laugh that one day powerful people approached her. “Rosie,” they said, “we want to hire you to be funny on that magical box, television. Once a day you’ll speak with special visitors, while people around the country watch. We think you could be the goose that lays our golden egg.”
Though Rosie didn’t like to be called a goose, she agreed. Millions of people turned on their magical boxes to watch Rosie. She was funny, but she was also kind. In fact, she became known as “The Queen of Nice.” Of course, she wasn’t really a queen, just a peasant who, by coincidence, had been born in a place called Queens.
Rosie also became known for telling all her viewers how fond she was of a man named Tom Cruise, who made his living by acting. Rosie appeared to want to marry Tom and live happily ever after.
And yet, at the same time, some people said that Rosie could never be happy with a man like Tom, because Rosie could never be happy with a man. Talk spread throughout the land that Rosie aimed her real affections at damsels.
Rosie never discussed this matter with her loyal viewers. She did discuss the fact that she had taken poor unloved orphans into her home to raise as her own. She adored children, and rejoiced in being a mother.
It was because children moved her so that she decided to tell everyone her secret. She did like damsels—a lot. She and one maiden had been as husband and wife to each other for years. So unhappy was Rosie at the injustice in the kingdom of Florida faced by parents like her—parents such as Rapunzel and Snow White who fell in love, adopted Goldilocks and moved to Tallahassee--that she revealed her secret, hoping the world would see such parents aren’t big bad wolves.
She had already decided it was time to cease her work on the magical box. Rosie also cut her hair in a surprising manner, causing a great hue and cry across the land. And for a time, she became entangled in a dark forest known as legal proceedings.
When the realm of San Francisco allowed women to marry women, Rosie wed her love amidst great fanfare. There was joy in the streets. Sadly, powerful wizards decreed their marriage had never happened.
Rosie returned to the magic box, joining a group of lively town criers who behaved both like loving sisters and wicked stepsisters. Rosie and an ogre with extraordinary hair scarred each other in verbal battle.
It seemed to the people that Rosie engaged in verbal conflict more often than Cinderella swept the hearth. There was wondering across the land at the change in The Queen of Nice. Had telling her secret changed her? Had she not really been nice? Had someone slipped her a poison Golden Delicious?
After just a short time with the town criers, she decided to part ways with them. That brings us to this very day. Where Rosie’s crooked tale goes from here has even the mirror on the wall stumped.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Incredible Journey
Ted Haggard has been called home. For the modern disgraced evangelist, that means Phoenix.
Last year’s memorable allegations of drug use and sex with a male prostitute led Haggard to this exodus from Colorado to Arizona. I’m confident he parted no waters on the way, unless you count slicing through a puddle in his car.
He left behind New Life Church, the 14,000-member Colorado Springs megachurch he founded and directed. It was a condition of his severance package from the Church, reported The Associated Press, that he depart Colorado Springs.
So he and his wife and children have left New Life for a new life. After all the shock and upset of the scandal, the locals weren’t wailing with grief. “When he moved out of town today, there was a kind of relief on the part of the church that life can get back to normal,” said the Rev. H.B. London.
You know what normal is: a lead minister who will condemn homosexuals, not sleep with them.
London is a member of Haggard’s “restoration” team, three ministers charged with the job of getting Haggard back on the straight and narrow. I’d guess to accomplish that for real, Haggard doesn’t need three wise men—he needs three miracle-workers.
In February, after three weeks of intensive therapy, Haggard declared himself totally heterosexual. I believe that like I believe intelligent design.
And it’s certainly scary that Haggard’s career plan is to get a graduate degree in counseling in the Phoenix area. Imagine him holding forth to some poor confused soul: “Hey, I got straight in three weeks, so you should be able to do it in three days!”
Another part of Haggard’s strategy for his new life is to attend Phoenix First Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church led by the Rev. Tommy Barnett, also a member of Haggard’s restoration trinity.
Until the scandal broke, Haggard was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He participated in White House conference calls. London noted of him, “Once you were in charge of a megachurch and a mega-staff and making mega-decisions, now your main decision is where you’re going to school, where to eat and what you’re going to do on your day off.”
This is a sensible insight from London regarding Haggard’s becoming just another face in the crowd, another butt in the pew. Not only has Ted Haggard set himself the task of fighting off his true nature, but he must also cope with his own personal power outage.
Barnett specializes in returning lost sheep to the fold. Televangelist Jim Bakker—he of Praise-The-Lord-and-pass-Jessica-Hahn infamy—headed to Barnett’s church after his prison stint for defrauding supporters. The church must’ve helped Bakker, for he eventually got back on TV, proving God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Phoenix does have one significant thing to recommend it—its name. When an evangelist’s career is in ruins, where better to start again than a city whose name promises rising from the ashes?
As part of his resurrection, Haggard will receive counseling, which will include exploring his sexuality. I wonder if Bakker was put through this. After all, in addition to his less than Christian treatment of Hahn, rumors of bisexuality floated around him like pollen.
In the case of Haggard, only time will tell whether he’ll be fully rehabilitated. Well, time, and assorted Phoenix callboys, some of whom will surely kiss and tell. They may even be on the lookout for him.
Meanwhile, back in Colorado Springs, New Life Church hopes to recover from the Haggard ordeal. Attendance has dropped 20 percent and giving is down 10 percent, so the church laid off 44 employees. No word on whether Haggard’s severance money could’ve paid their wages.
Last year’s memorable allegations of drug use and sex with a male prostitute led Haggard to this exodus from Colorado to Arizona. I’m confident he parted no waters on the way, unless you count slicing through a puddle in his car.
He left behind New Life Church, the 14,000-member Colorado Springs megachurch he founded and directed. It was a condition of his severance package from the Church, reported The Associated Press, that he depart Colorado Springs.
So he and his wife and children have left New Life for a new life. After all the shock and upset of the scandal, the locals weren’t wailing with grief. “When he moved out of town today, there was a kind of relief on the part of the church that life can get back to normal,” said the Rev. H.B. London.
You know what normal is: a lead minister who will condemn homosexuals, not sleep with them.
London is a member of Haggard’s “restoration” team, three ministers charged with the job of getting Haggard back on the straight and narrow. I’d guess to accomplish that for real, Haggard doesn’t need three wise men—he needs three miracle-workers.
In February, after three weeks of intensive therapy, Haggard declared himself totally heterosexual. I believe that like I believe intelligent design.
And it’s certainly scary that Haggard’s career plan is to get a graduate degree in counseling in the Phoenix area. Imagine him holding forth to some poor confused soul: “Hey, I got straight in three weeks, so you should be able to do it in three days!”
Another part of Haggard’s strategy for his new life is to attend Phoenix First Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church led by the Rev. Tommy Barnett, also a member of Haggard’s restoration trinity.
Until the scandal broke, Haggard was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He participated in White House conference calls. London noted of him, “Once you were in charge of a megachurch and a mega-staff and making mega-decisions, now your main decision is where you’re going to school, where to eat and what you’re going to do on your day off.”
This is a sensible insight from London regarding Haggard’s becoming just another face in the crowd, another butt in the pew. Not only has Ted Haggard set himself the task of fighting off his true nature, but he must also cope with his own personal power outage.
Barnett specializes in returning lost sheep to the fold. Televangelist Jim Bakker—he of Praise-The-Lord-and-pass-Jessica-Hahn infamy—headed to Barnett’s church after his prison stint for defrauding supporters. The church must’ve helped Bakker, for he eventually got back on TV, proving God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Phoenix does have one significant thing to recommend it—its name. When an evangelist’s career is in ruins, where better to start again than a city whose name promises rising from the ashes?
As part of his resurrection, Haggard will receive counseling, which will include exploring his sexuality. I wonder if Bakker was put through this. After all, in addition to his less than Christian treatment of Hahn, rumors of bisexuality floated around him like pollen.
In the case of Haggard, only time will tell whether he’ll be fully rehabilitated. Well, time, and assorted Phoenix callboys, some of whom will surely kiss and tell. They may even be on the lookout for him.
Meanwhile, back in Colorado Springs, New Life Church hopes to recover from the Haggard ordeal. Attendance has dropped 20 percent and giving is down 10 percent, so the church laid off 44 employees. No word on whether Haggard’s severance money could’ve paid their wages.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Radio Ga Ga
This week I decided to write about a radio host whose utterances caused controversy.
It’s not who you think it is.
Comic Roseanne Barr has a show on KCAA, a southern California radio station. According to PlanetOut, on a recent show she blurted to her guest, a lesbian activist, that she has never known a politically active homosexual who gave two hoots—or even a hoot-let--about nongay issues.
“They don’t care about minimum wage. They don’t care about any other group other than their own selves—because, you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing, and sometimes I wonder,” said Barr.
She also compared gay activists to religious evangelicals, a comparison sure to horrify both groups.
Chuck Wolfe, head of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, released a statement on April 10, which, in case you’re fashioning a flow chart of radio bigmouths, was two days before CBS dropped Don Imus’s radio show.
“Roseanne Barr has defamed the hundreds of openly gay and lesbian elected and appointed officials who go to work every day to improve schools, make streets safer and better their communities. Politically active gays and lesbians are involved in many issues,” said Wolfe. “Inane comments like Roseanne’s are irresponsible and uninformed.”
They’re also a shock, he added, considering her past support of the LGBT community. Indeed, in 1994 Barr made history on her sitcom “Roseanne” with one of the first lesbian kisses on TV. Mariel Hemingway bussed her. To think that Barr stuck with men after that . . .
Anyway, returning to Barr’s recent ruckus, she quickly apologized on her Web site. “I deeply regret that I have offended gay people . . . Call me up today and let me have it! I will apologize and try to make clear what I really meant to say . . . that everybody needs to unite right now, and step outside of their own neighborhoods, groups, races and classes to stop Bush’s war on our country and our people. I love gays and I hate division. I am just a big idiot with a big mouth sometimes. I will learn to be more careful! Please forgive me, I am so sorry!!!!”
That did the trick. The Victory Fund declared that we’re all friends again.
PlanetOut wasn’t so sure. Citing the recent flurry of anti-gay invective from celebrities, the site asked readers to vote on whether Barr’s apology was enough.
Compared to Don Imus’s “nappy-headed hos” crack, Roseanne Barr’s rant was practically another kiss to the gay community. Nevertheless, she done wrong. Even if she’s never known a gay person who fought for any other cause, which is hugely doubtful, she still shouldn’t have accused us all of possessing the social sensitivity of Marie Antoinette.
I know a lot of gays and lesbians who work for all manner of issues, who care about the entire world, not just our part of it. In my case, I was politically minded before I figured out I was gay; I’ll be politically minded after I figure out I’m post-gay, whenever that mysterious moment should arrive.
Obviously we become gay activists because we want to be treated better as gay people. Most of those who fought for black civil rights were African-American. There’s nothing as motivating as fighting for your life.
Which can also give you the tunnel vision Barr complained about. As can simply being a self-absorbed weenie. So it’s not a bad idea for politically active gays to ponder where we are on the social awareness scale.
Fortunately I know many folks rate high on that scale. But if the only scale you’re familiar with is Kinsey’s, it might be time to branch out.
It’s not who you think it is.
Comic Roseanne Barr has a show on KCAA, a southern California radio station. According to PlanetOut, on a recent show she blurted to her guest, a lesbian activist, that she has never known a politically active homosexual who gave two hoots—or even a hoot-let--about nongay issues.
“They don’t care about minimum wage. They don’t care about any other group other than their own selves—because, you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing, and sometimes I wonder,” said Barr.
She also compared gay activists to religious evangelicals, a comparison sure to horrify both groups.
Chuck Wolfe, head of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, released a statement on April 10, which, in case you’re fashioning a flow chart of radio bigmouths, was two days before CBS dropped Don Imus’s radio show.
“Roseanne Barr has defamed the hundreds of openly gay and lesbian elected and appointed officials who go to work every day to improve schools, make streets safer and better their communities. Politically active gays and lesbians are involved in many issues,” said Wolfe. “Inane comments like Roseanne’s are irresponsible and uninformed.”
They’re also a shock, he added, considering her past support of the LGBT community. Indeed, in 1994 Barr made history on her sitcom “Roseanne” with one of the first lesbian kisses on TV. Mariel Hemingway bussed her. To think that Barr stuck with men after that . . .
Anyway, returning to Barr’s recent ruckus, she quickly apologized on her Web site. “I deeply regret that I have offended gay people . . . Call me up today and let me have it! I will apologize and try to make clear what I really meant to say . . . that everybody needs to unite right now, and step outside of their own neighborhoods, groups, races and classes to stop Bush’s war on our country and our people. I love gays and I hate division. I am just a big idiot with a big mouth sometimes. I will learn to be more careful! Please forgive me, I am so sorry!!!!”
That did the trick. The Victory Fund declared that we’re all friends again.
PlanetOut wasn’t so sure. Citing the recent flurry of anti-gay invective from celebrities, the site asked readers to vote on whether Barr’s apology was enough.
Compared to Don Imus’s “nappy-headed hos” crack, Roseanne Barr’s rant was practically another kiss to the gay community. Nevertheless, she done wrong. Even if she’s never known a gay person who fought for any other cause, which is hugely doubtful, she still shouldn’t have accused us all of possessing the social sensitivity of Marie Antoinette.
I know a lot of gays and lesbians who work for all manner of issues, who care about the entire world, not just our part of it. In my case, I was politically minded before I figured out I was gay; I’ll be politically minded after I figure out I’m post-gay, whenever that mysterious moment should arrive.
Obviously we become gay activists because we want to be treated better as gay people. Most of those who fought for black civil rights were African-American. There’s nothing as motivating as fighting for your life.
Which can also give you the tunnel vision Barr complained about. As can simply being a self-absorbed weenie. So it’s not a bad idea for politically active gays to ponder where we are on the social awareness scale.
Fortunately I know many folks rate high on that scale. But if the only scale you’re familiar with is Kinsey’s, it might be time to branch out.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Mary's Boy Child
Last December, when the news hit that Mary Cheney and Heather Poe were having a baby, assorted conservative leaders turned the couple into a piñata.
Now the baby’s grandfather, Vice President Cheney, has announced that Mary is having a boy.
Let the games begin.
Based on their initial reaction, I can only assume social conservatives will now treat the country to another round of scolding. It could be they got it out of their systems last December, but I doubt it. I suspect the news that the two lesbians are birthing a boy will unleash pinpoint-focused conniptions.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, who initially called Cheney’s pregnancy “unconscionable,” will disappoint me if she doesn’t have something just as provocative to say about the latest news.
Like this, for instance: “A boy? With no father? That’s not unconscionable, that’s criminal. With all due respect to the vice president, his daughter belongs in the pokey.”
Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, said in December, “I think it’s tragic that a child has been conceived with the express purpose of denying it a father.”
I hope, four months later, Knight can top this astounding analysis of what motivates lesbians to have children—but it won’t be easy.
Perhaps something along these lines: “I believe this is precisely what those women hoped for, the opportunity to ruin a boy. I know lesbians loathe men, but I never thought they’d stoop this low. Imagine the poor tyke in that household, yearning for a male role model, and the closest thing he can find is two women who played college ice hockey.
“Without a father, this boy won’t receive proper guidance on how to be male. He’ll absorb only female tendencies. I hope the vice president is prepared for another homosexual in the Cheney family.”
Then there’s James Dobson, influential leader of the evangelical Focus on the Family, who in December wrote a guest column for Time magazine headlined “Two Mommies Is One Too Many.” He didn’t strafe the moms-to-be, noting that his group “does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples.”
In making his case for so-called traditional marriage, Dobson turned less to God and more to social science, citing the work of two child-rearing experts. God would’ve been a safer choice, because both of those experts wrote to Dobson and Time that Dobson had turned their research into a game of Twister.
In his letter, Dr. Kyle Pruett from the Yale School of Medicine stated that Dobson “cherry-picked a phrase” from Pruett’s book to buttress his discriminatory aim, and conveniently ignored Pruett’s contention that kids of gay dads develop just fine.
Well, if Dobson likes to pick and choose his facts, I can make a reasonable guess as to his next penned offering:
“The news that Mary Cheney will deliver a boy concerns us here at Focus on the Family. While we are certain Cheney and her lesbian partner will be the best parents they can, we are also certain that this boy would be much better served by having one mother and one father, who are married to each other.
“Not only is this traditional arrangement biblically mandated, but its importance is evident in professor Charles Zucker’s study of the crickets of southern Kansas. Zucker discovered that those male crickets raised by a single mother or by two mothers never expressed any interest in going out for football.
“It will be best for the children, and best for society, when adult crickets finally put their selfish ways behind them.”
Now the baby’s grandfather, Vice President Cheney, has announced that Mary is having a boy.
Let the games begin.
Based on their initial reaction, I can only assume social conservatives will now treat the country to another round of scolding. It could be they got it out of their systems last December, but I doubt it. I suspect the news that the two lesbians are birthing a boy will unleash pinpoint-focused conniptions.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, who initially called Cheney’s pregnancy “unconscionable,” will disappoint me if she doesn’t have something just as provocative to say about the latest news.
Like this, for instance: “A boy? With no father? That’s not unconscionable, that’s criminal. With all due respect to the vice president, his daughter belongs in the pokey.”
Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, said in December, “I think it’s tragic that a child has been conceived with the express purpose of denying it a father.”
I hope, four months later, Knight can top this astounding analysis of what motivates lesbians to have children—but it won’t be easy.
Perhaps something along these lines: “I believe this is precisely what those women hoped for, the opportunity to ruin a boy. I know lesbians loathe men, but I never thought they’d stoop this low. Imagine the poor tyke in that household, yearning for a male role model, and the closest thing he can find is two women who played college ice hockey.
“Without a father, this boy won’t receive proper guidance on how to be male. He’ll absorb only female tendencies. I hope the vice president is prepared for another homosexual in the Cheney family.”
Then there’s James Dobson, influential leader of the evangelical Focus on the Family, who in December wrote a guest column for Time magazine headlined “Two Mommies Is One Too Many.” He didn’t strafe the moms-to-be, noting that his group “does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples.”
In making his case for so-called traditional marriage, Dobson turned less to God and more to social science, citing the work of two child-rearing experts. God would’ve been a safer choice, because both of those experts wrote to Dobson and Time that Dobson had turned their research into a game of Twister.
In his letter, Dr. Kyle Pruett from the Yale School of Medicine stated that Dobson “cherry-picked a phrase” from Pruett’s book to buttress his discriminatory aim, and conveniently ignored Pruett’s contention that kids of gay dads develop just fine.
Well, if Dobson likes to pick and choose his facts, I can make a reasonable guess as to his next penned offering:
“The news that Mary Cheney will deliver a boy concerns us here at Focus on the Family. While we are certain Cheney and her lesbian partner will be the best parents they can, we are also certain that this boy would be much better served by having one mother and one father, who are married to each other.
“Not only is this traditional arrangement biblically mandated, but its importance is evident in professor Charles Zucker’s study of the crickets of southern Kansas. Zucker discovered that those male crickets raised by a single mother or by two mothers never expressed any interest in going out for football.
“It will be best for the children, and best for society, when adult crickets finally put their selfish ways behind them.”
Monday, April 2, 2007
Guiding the Rookie Lesbian
I met Elizabeth about five years ago at a mostly gay party. She was a graduate nursing student, who looked every inch the straight girl. It took hours and alcohol for her to confess that she was involved with a woman for the first time in her life.
Over the next years, Elizabeth and I walked regularly around Green Lake in Seattle, parsing her lesbian adolescence. That adolescence is complete, but we still walk the lake. Last night she told me about her cousin who’s now coming out, and filling Elizabeth in on every wobbly step. The rookie lesbian has become the coach.
Elizabeth couldn’t have imagined herself being able to advise anyone on dykedom during our early strolls. At that time her new experiences were thrilling, confusing, terrifying, exasperating and liberating. All before lunch.
Having been only with men, Elizabeth found herself going through a second adolescence 15 years after her first. So we had a lot of ground to cover, ranging from the evolving reactions of her family to her yearning for her girlfriend in California to the hot guest lecturer in class.
We peered backwards at the hints sprinkled throughout Elizabeth’s life that she might be gay; the hints now looked like neon billboards. We dealt with her coming out to roommates and nursing professors and strangers. Her naiveté flared when she had trouble believing that lesbians with partners and kids could behave as wolfishly as any guy; and she scared herself when she realized she enjoyed the attention from one big bad wolf.
Although she developed crushes at the drop of a tongue depressor, she never acted on them. Her heart lay with Ann in San Diego. One sure way to get a rise out of Elizabeth was to mention how first lesbian relationships rarely last. “I know!” she’d yelp. “I wish people would stop telling me that!”
Maintaining a long-distance relationship is difficult at any time, let alone when you’re in your lesbian adolescence and anyone with a Sapphic sensibility looks lip-smackin’ good. It’s a testament to Elizabeth and Ann that they both avoided distractions and honed in on what was most important to them, namely each other.
I should note that Elizabeth found a vicarious way of getting her ya-yas out: setting me up. When she would begin our walk by announcing, “I found your wife today!” I knew I was headed for another misadventure in lesbian dating. Back then she hadn’t grasped that pairing two lesbians on the basis that they’re both breathing does not a sizzling Sapphic romance make.
Now Elizabeth’s cousin Claire, at age 40, is being bombarded by emotions and discoveries, which she shares with Elizabeth via the phone. The other evening Elizabeth delayed a dinner meeting so Claire, who’s just gotten involved, could read aloud a note from her new love—six times.
Elizabeth pulled from her shelves books she’d bought in her early days, and sent a sort of lesbian care package to Claire. The stories of first lesbian loves particularly resonate with this family member who’s gleefully gathering material for her own story.
Elizabeth is elated that her cousin is so happy. But now that Elizabeth is the coach and not the rookie, she says to me, “I can’t believe how much crap you listened to!”
She didn’t want me to include those words here, fearing they could hurt Claire. But I bet that soon enough Claire will get it, and say of her own lesbian adolescence, “I was a mess. And it was wonderful.”
When she reaches that point, Claire will be in coaching shape. Then she too, in the immortal words of "Will and Grace"’s Jack McFarland, might “gay it forward.”
Over the next years, Elizabeth and I walked regularly around Green Lake in Seattle, parsing her lesbian adolescence. That adolescence is complete, but we still walk the lake. Last night she told me about her cousin who’s now coming out, and filling Elizabeth in on every wobbly step. The rookie lesbian has become the coach.
Elizabeth couldn’t have imagined herself being able to advise anyone on dykedom during our early strolls. At that time her new experiences were thrilling, confusing, terrifying, exasperating and liberating. All before lunch.
Having been only with men, Elizabeth found herself going through a second adolescence 15 years after her first. So we had a lot of ground to cover, ranging from the evolving reactions of her family to her yearning for her girlfriend in California to the hot guest lecturer in class.
We peered backwards at the hints sprinkled throughout Elizabeth’s life that she might be gay; the hints now looked like neon billboards. We dealt with her coming out to roommates and nursing professors and strangers. Her naiveté flared when she had trouble believing that lesbians with partners and kids could behave as wolfishly as any guy; and she scared herself when she realized she enjoyed the attention from one big bad wolf.
Although she developed crushes at the drop of a tongue depressor, she never acted on them. Her heart lay with Ann in San Diego. One sure way to get a rise out of Elizabeth was to mention how first lesbian relationships rarely last. “I know!” she’d yelp. “I wish people would stop telling me that!”
Maintaining a long-distance relationship is difficult at any time, let alone when you’re in your lesbian adolescence and anyone with a Sapphic sensibility looks lip-smackin’ good. It’s a testament to Elizabeth and Ann that they both avoided distractions and honed in on what was most important to them, namely each other.
I should note that Elizabeth found a vicarious way of getting her ya-yas out: setting me up. When she would begin our walk by announcing, “I found your wife today!” I knew I was headed for another misadventure in lesbian dating. Back then she hadn’t grasped that pairing two lesbians on the basis that they’re both breathing does not a sizzling Sapphic romance make.
Now Elizabeth’s cousin Claire, at age 40, is being bombarded by emotions and discoveries, which she shares with Elizabeth via the phone. The other evening Elizabeth delayed a dinner meeting so Claire, who’s just gotten involved, could read aloud a note from her new love—six times.
Elizabeth pulled from her shelves books she’d bought in her early days, and sent a sort of lesbian care package to Claire. The stories of first lesbian loves particularly resonate with this family member who’s gleefully gathering material for her own story.
Elizabeth is elated that her cousin is so happy. But now that Elizabeth is the coach and not the rookie, she says to me, “I can’t believe how much crap you listened to!”
She didn’t want me to include those words here, fearing they could hurt Claire. But I bet that soon enough Claire will get it, and say of her own lesbian adolescence, “I was a mess. And it was wonderful.”
When she reaches that point, Claire will be in coaching shape. Then she too, in the immortal words of "Will and Grace"’s Jack McFarland, might “gay it forward.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)