Analysis of How I Learned to Snap by Kirk Read

I recently read this book as part of a literature class I took. It closely parallels my own experices, and I think it would be worth anyone’s time to check it out.

Kirk Read’s “How I Learned to Snap” is the heartwarming autobiography of a gay man growing up in the 1970s and 1980s in Virginia. While Kirk did encounter homophobia while growing up, since Virginia was and still is a very conservative state, he actually managed to mature relatively well in the society that he lived in, showing that LGBT people can thrive even in homophobic climates. In the process, he also developed a care and appreciation for the people in his community.
One would think that it would be very difficult to live in a state with so much homophobia, but Kirk actually managed fairly well, especially when compared to how other LGBT people have made out in their own communities (i.e. Matthew Shepherd, etc.). He talked of Virginia’s natural beauty, such as a river that “I always went to for quiet…I’d made up stories about…floods and ghosts who held back the river with their breath (p. 95).” Kirk had an appreciation for the physical environment that he lived in.
Socially, Virginia’s homophobic atmosphere did not stop Kirk from behaving like any other American teenager. He had a party at one point that got a little out of hand, and ended up looking very much like a party at one of the Siena townhouses! “Before we picked up cans and bottles, I pushed play on the stereo to provide some… ‘Sweet Home Alabama’…my friends started dancing…then I started dancing too (p. 100).” What is notable is that Kirk does not tend to use formal literary language, etc. He describes his experiences as though they were not out of the ordinary. He went to football games, high school dances, etc. In terms of his friendships and acquaintances, Kirk had relatively little difficulty finding and keeping friendships, some of which continue to this day. One particularly large and intimidating football player named Jimmy told Kirk that “I heard what people say about you…and I don’t really care…you’re one hell of a guy (p. 114).”
Instead of merely having parties, Kirk also went to keg parties on occasion. He warmly described one time at a countryside party where he was taken by a few of the redneck guys that he went to school with and “inducted” in a way. “I almost declined, then grabbed the bottle. This was an induction, I figured. They were accepting me as a redneck (p. 190).” Despite being a little afraid that these rough and tough guys might try to hurt him, Kirk went along with them, and they took him out for “cow tipping.” As odd as it might have seemed from an outsider’s perspective, these redneck guys took Kirk under their wing and accepted him. “When I saw those guys in the hall from that point on, they gave me a friendly punch on the arm (p. 193).”
Even Kirk’s Baptist friend Valerie, who knew he was gay for a long time, “never tried to talk me out of it…never even tried very hard to convert me (p. 157).” In fact, Valerie later came out as a lesbian, and still remained active in her church. Unfortunately, Kirk was told by a youth director in the church that if he did not undergo a second baptism and not be “openly queer,” that he could not participate in the youth group at the church that he and Valerie were a part of. Valerie got everyone in the youth group to walk out on the director!
Kirk’s family and siblings, even those with strong religious backgrounds, eventually came around, if not at first. His one brother, Dwight, who was at one time very homophobic, did something totally unexpected. He encouraged Kirk to get a house with his boyfriend Walker in a particular location that would enable them to live together while Kirk went to school. “I stared at him, incredulous. My formerly homophobic brother was encouraging me to live with a man his own age (p. 187).” The age gap between Kirk and Walker was apparently also accepted well, even by Kirk’s mother, who “rarely encroached upon my freedom, especially when it came to Walker (p. 186).” This is not what one would expect given the environment that Kirk grew up in.
In another instance, when Kirk demands that he be allowed to take another man to a school dance, the superintendent of his school district actually revised the rule to allow Kirk to bring a man, telling Kirk in a letter that “I have determined that such a regulation [barring same-sex dates at dances] might indeed lead to discrimination against certain students (p. 146).” As Kirk noted, this response was not quite what he had expected. The tone of the superintendant’s letter was very respectful, to the point of being “anticlimactic (p. 147).” One might not think that a school district in a state like Virginia, especially back in 1989 when the letter was written, would have so easily allowed Kirk to bring a man to a school dance.
Despite the entrenched homophobia, Kirk never gave up on Lexington. He still returns there for Christmas each year. The most moving part of the book for me was when Kirk eloquently stated that “These are my people…when I go home to Lexington, I always visit my teachers at the high school…saying hello to the people in the community…they all know I’m gay…I never wanted to abandon Lexington altogether…I loved Lexington…I held out hope that they’d come around on gay issues (p. 111).” One can only hope that Kirk’s wish would be fulfilled. Perhaps, slowly but surely, his wish is coming true.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Sean Penn: Congrats!

First, let me extend my congratulations to Sean Penn for winning an Oscar for Best Actor in Milk. He played the part of Harvey Milk quite well. Apparently he also raised a few eyebrows for saying that those who voted for Prop 8 should be ashamed of themselves:

Milk’s speech draws some criticism

Of course this is to be expected. People who voted to strip the rights of California’s LGBT citizens have had to vigorously defend themselves in the wake of the protests and unprecedented political activity that has been taking place since Prop 8 passed in November of last year. The question that some commentators like Bill O’Reilly have raised is whether or not he was justified in saying that. Should people who voted for Prop 8 be ashamed of themselves?

Interestingly, from a Catholic perspective, my response is “that depends.” Catholic teaching emphasizes the importance of following an informed conscience (the debate over what constitutes an “informed” conscience and whether it can ever contradict Catholic doctrine is another matter). If shame is an emotion caused by the stirring of a conscience that knows it did something morally wrong, then it is justified. But what if one didn’t know that something was wrong? And how do we even define what is wrong? I’m getting pretty philosophical here, but bear with me. Certainly, there are sincere convictions on both sides of the LGBT rights debate over who is objectively right and who is objectively wrong, with little gray area in between. I believe that voting to end gay marriage was objectively wrong, but I don’t think that all who voted to end it were objectively guilty. How do I arrive at this conclusion? I say this because there could have been mitigating circumstances for why someone voted for Prop 8, or why a particular person might be homophobic in general. What kinds of mitigating circumstances might there be?

1. Strong familial or religious indoctrination, and pressure from such groups (such as the threat of excommunication from a particular religious group if one did not pledge to support the anti-gay law)
2. A lack of factual information regarding homosexuality and sexuality in general, which is certainly plausible considering the quality of our sex education in this country
3. Misinterpretation of what legalized same-sex marriage means for a particular jurisdiction (i.e. churches would not be forced to perform such marriages, just as my own Catholic Church will not marry couples who have been divorced and not received an annulment).
4. Any kind of disorder that may impair one’s judgment

While I share Sean Penn’s anger at the fact that so many people voted to end gay marriage, I must be cautious in castigating ALL people who voted to do so. Some of them may regret what they did (I think I actually read a poll suggesting that some pro-Prop 8 Californians are regretting what they did) for all I know.

Now, if Sean Penn were to be more specific and set aside those Californians affected by one of the mitigating circumstances that may have led them to vote down gay marriage, and targeted those Californians without such mitigating circumstances, then I would absolutely agree with him that those particular Prop 8 proponents should be ashamed. Of course, most of them probably won’t be, but that doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. One of the commentators on Bill O’Reilly’s show last night said that her grandchildren will see this issue a lot differently then we do. Bill didn’t want to touch that remark, perhaps because he knows she’s right. I would say that we won’t even have to wait for her grandchildren. A 2007 Pew poll revealed that 56% of Millennials (those currently between 18-29 years old) support gay marriage (seems like a conservative estimate; other polls have it at 60% or even higher). But that’s all beside the point. If I were Sean Penn, instead of focusing on saying who should be ashamed and who shouldn’t be, I would have suggested that the audience join me in praying for those who voted for Prop 8, that God may move their hearts to see LGBT people in a different, better light. I hope that Sean Penn and the readers of this blog will join me in the same prayer for all of our opponents, whoever they may be.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Senator Buttars: Nothing New Under the Sun

This may sound quite strange, but I actually enjoy watching homophobes spout their criticisms of LGBT people and their experiences. The reason I enjoy it is because they tend to make themselves sound incredibly stupid in the process. I used to wonder if any of them have realized that yet. Apparently the answer is no, based on these remarks by Senator Chris Buttars of Utah:

Buttars remarks

The poor senator’s memory seems to be failing if he’s comparing LGBT people to terrorists, because last time I checked, it was al-Qaeda that caused 9/11 (not to mention the fact that some of the victims of 9/11 were gay). Did Prop 8 protesters fly airplanes into California’s skyscrapers or blow up anything? A few of the particularly stupid ones shoved people, vandalized a few churches and interrupted religious services, but no one was seriously harmed or killed. Are LGBT people killing US soldiers and local civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq? I don’t think so. The sad thing is that the senator’s remarks do not surprise me. Do a google search of him and check out his record. It’s appalling. I can only pray for Senator Buttars. His remarks dirty the names of the LGBT victims of terror attacks, and indeed all of the victims of terror attacks. May God forgive him.

Let’s take a quick look at the most common anti-gay arguments out there, which you’ll tend to hear from people like Senator Buttars:

1. Being gay is a mental disorder.
2. The only reason the American Psychiatric Association no longer considers being gay a disease is because of political pressure from gay activists.
3. Being gay is “unnatural” (whatever that means).
4. Being gay is a sin.
5. Being gay is condemned in the Bible.
6. LGBT people tend to molest children.
7. LGBT people tend not to have stable, monogamous relationships and have many sex partners.
8. LGBT people “flaunt” their sexuality.
9. Being LGBT is a “lifestyle.”
10. LGBT people want to destroy marriage.
11. Most Americans disapprove of being gay and of same-sex marriage.
12. Just because someone has a homosexual orientation doesn’t mean that they should ever act on it, since it’s like alcoholism, a tendency to do something destructive and wrong (this is currently the official view of the Roman Catholic Church). They should be celibate for the rest of their lives.
13. Gay relationships never last.
14. Being gay should be discouraged because same-sex relationships don’t produce children.
15. Gay parenting will harm children.

I could spend a lot of time and energy refuting these arguments, but there are others that have done just as good a job of that as I ever could. Check out the Box Turtle Bulletin to find some of the better refutations of these arguments. They’re actually not that difficult to refute if one knows the facts.

Despite the fact that all of these arguments can be easily refuted, I doubt it would really matter to people like Senator Buttars. One thing that is crucial to understand about people like Senator Buttars is that there are people who simply cannot understand what being LGBT is all about. They never have understood it, and probably never will. They cannot seriously consider and reflect on new scientific facts that we’ve discovered over the years. They cannot bring themselves to consider or even look at new Biblical and theological insights. It really is tragic.

Let me end with a quote by Susan B. Anthony that I think tends to sum up the thought patterns of fundamentalists of any kind:

“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”

Goodbye and God bless!

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Analysis of The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman

The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman was called “one of the best plays of the year” by Time Magazine. It chronicles the various reactions of the people of Laramie, Wyoming in the wake of the Matthew Shepherd murder in 1998. The most fascinating aspect of the play is the various reactions and emotions of the people that were interviewed to the murder, which were really all over the map, from the sadness and guilt of some of the townspeople to the joyful celebration of the so-called “Reverend” Fred Phelps. The people who should have felt guilt over Matthew’s death did not, while those who did not bear much or any responsibility sometimes felt a sense of guilt. In this way, the play presents an example of dramatic irony in the reactions of the various parties involved.
Fr. Roger Schmit, a Catholic priest, expressed how “jolted” he was when he bravely performed a vigil for Matthew Shepherd. He also expressed his anger that various religious ministers decided not to “get involved (p. 25).” The priest was presented as a more sympathetic figure, being one of the most tolerant of the religious figures in the play. He did not even bother to consult the bishop for permission to do the sermon. The Baptist minister’s wife’s thoughts were also interesting. She claimed that her husband’s thoughts about the murder were that “he has very biblical views about homosexuality…he doesn’t condone that kind of violence…but he doesn’t condone that kind of lifestyle… (p. 27).” She does not even realize the contradiction in her description of her husband’s views, since the Bible mandates the death penalty for male homosexuality! She went on to say that “we are all hoping this just goes away.” It is almost as though she wanted to dismiss what happened as an annoyance, but nothing to get all bent out of shape over. Her attitude appeared dismissive. Matt Galloway, a bartender that worked at the place where Shepherd picked up his two killers, expressed a sense of remorse despite the fact that he really did not have anything to be sorry for. He said that “I shoulda noticed. I shoulda not had my head down when I was washing dishes for those twenty seconds. Things I coulda done. (p. 52).” Such a feeling is probably natural and certainly understandable, but this really highlights the dramatic irony in the play, namely the fact that a bartender felt guilty when he really had nothing to be guilty over (how could he have known what was going to happen?) and yet the people who bear responsibility for fostering the hatred and intolerance that lead to Matthew’s murder really do not feel much sorrow at all. Look at the Baptist minister, for example. He is reluctant to talk about the entire fiasco, but when he does, it is clear how he really felt. While the minister supported the death penalty for Matthew’s killers (his wife’s contradiction comes to light here; if his views were strictly biblical, as his wife maintained, he would have celebrated Matthew’s killers as carrying out the required penalty for male homosexuality), his words about Matthew spell out his attitude quite clearly. “I know that his lifestyle was legal…I hope that Matthew Shepherd as he was tied to that fence…had time…to reflect on his lifestyle (p. 69).” Like many, he reduced Matthew Shepherd to a “lifestyle,” as if every LGBT person leads the same lifestyle! He showed no sorrow or regret for Matthew’s murder, and never considered whether or not his sermons and exhortations may have helped promote the kind of violence that Matthew was a victim of. Unfortunately, this Baptist minister was tame compared to Fred Phelps, who said among other things that “…two times for every verse [the Bible] talks about God’s love it talks about God’s hate (p. 78)…we love that attribute of God…because God’s hatred is pure (p. 79).” This was, undoubtedly, the most extreme reaction in the play to Matthew’s murder, and it is an attitude like Phelps’ that contributed to the same homophobia that lead to Matthew’s death.
Toward the end of the play, one of the murderers, Russell Henderson, said that he was sorry for killing Matthew Shepherd. “I know what I did was very wrong, and I regret greatly what I did…I’m ready to pay my debt for what I did. (p. 83).” Could this potentially shatter the dramatic irony? I am not so sure that it did. Here is an example of a guilty party, the most guilty out of everyone in fact, who did express sorrow. However, the judge in the case did not buy it, and neither did I. “You drove the vehicle that took Matthew Shepherd to his death…bound him to that fence…left him out there for eighteen hours…and you did nothing…this Court does not believe that you really feel any true remorse for your part in this matter (p. 83).” The judge finished by wondering if Russell Henderson really understood the true gravity of what he did. I have to wonder the same thing.
The range of reactions from the various characters, as written by Kaufman, ran from guilt and sorrow to stubborn denial and even the perverse elation of Fred Phelps. Kaufman, in portraying the reactions, helped highlight the irony which characters felt which emotions. The fact that, in general, the characters who were not really culpable in any way felt guilt, whereas those who were really responsible did not, is an unfortunate irony, but not nearly as unfortunate as the events that lead to the story behind the play.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.