Welcome to the
celebrity-friendly version of The Week in Gay. The most
salacious story hitting the blogs and the big papers was the
Los Angeles Times' two-page Sunday spread devoted to the
media's treatment of the relationship between
Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson.
The piece by Kate
Arthur talks about the usually voracious celebrity
media's rather demure handling of the Lohan-Ronson
pairing. In this case, the relationship seems to be
met with the print version of a shrug -- at least
until Life & Style dared to run a cover
asking "Is Lindsay Gay?"
Perhaps,
as Village Voice columnist Michael
Musto suggests to the Times, "they
don't consider gay a dirty thing anymore. And
it's very cool."
Or maybe they are
just taking the lead from the couple themselves, who
are out about it without stating it for the record. Sheila
McClear of Gawker.com argued in a post last month
("Why Lindsay Lohan Is a Gay Hero") that
Lohan's casual openness is revolutionary
because it treats her same-sex relationship the same as her
straight ones. She writes: "Here's
what's cool: Lohan has been entirely
matter-of-fact about the whole affair. She's
continued to appear in public with her rumored lover.
There has been no moaning from her about private-life
intrusion from the media, and no cries from her cougar mom
to `Leave Lindsay ALONE!' "
The other
possibility to consider -- and not a pleasant one -- is that
the mags aren't using the words gay and
homosexual and lesbian because they
don't want to upset the more conservative
segments of their readership. They are just putting out
the story and the accompanying photos as if to say
"Nothing unusual here!"
The Life &
Style cover seems to have helped open the gateways
for more explicit coverage -- New York Daily News gossip columnist Jo Piazza ran an item about Dina
Lohan's approval of the couple. She writes:
"Dina was all smiles, telling partygoers just how
cute she thought the pair looked, making sure reporters were
never out of earshot." Such a thing would have
been unthinkable even five years ago.
Of course, like
any celebrity couple, they have their ups and downs, as
Gawker.com illustrates in another post. Hopefully, the
relationship will go back up.
In more serious
news, Newsweek ran a 5,000-word cover story about Lawrence King,
the 15-year-old who was murdered at point-blank range
during class earlier this year. The piece wonders,
just as The Advocate's earlier cover story on the subject did,
if kids coming out younger is endangering their
lives rather than freeing them. The article by Ramin
Setoodeh details King's flamboyant personality:
"On some days, he would slick up his curly hair in a
Prince-like bouffant. Sometimes he'd paint his fingernails
hot pink and dab glitter or white foundation on his
cheeks." His boldness caused one teacher to
comment: "He was like Britney Spears."
Interestingly,
the piece paints Larry as someone who pushed the
boundaries as far as possible, describing his behavior as
purposely taunting. According to Newsweek he
had told one teacher, "It's fun to watch
them squirm."
Central to the
piece is the rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma the
school's teachers found themselves: They were
told not to admonish his behavior, lest they be
considered to be discriminating against gender expression
-- even if they didn't mind his behavior
personally yet thought it might cause problems. The
school facility was so distressed that an e-mail went
out.
Reports
Newsweek: "The commotion over Larry's
appearance finally forced the school office to take formal
action. On Jan. 29, every teacher received an e-mail
with the subject line STUDENT RIGHTS. It was written
by Sue Parsons, the eighth-grade assistant principal.
`We have a student on campus who has chosen to express his
sexuality by wearing make-up,' the e-mail said
without mentioning Larry by name. `It is his right to
do so. Some kids are finding it amusing, others are
bothered by it. As long as it does not cause classroom
disruptions he is within his rights. We are asking that you
talk to your students about being civil and
non-judgmental. They don't have to like it but
they need to give him his space. We are also asking you to
watch for possible problems.' "
Unfortunately, it
wasn't enough.
In Congress, the
Democrats called a hearing in hopes to reversing
the "don't ask, don't tell"
military policy, reports USA Today -- as troops try to head off the Taliban
insurgency in Afghanistan in addition as well as
numerous insurgencies in Iraq.
The piece, which
points out that 627 members were discharged last year
under the policy, notes that even former Joint Chiefs of
Staff chairman John Shalikashvili is in favor
of repealing it. He told the paper that without
the Dems' hearing, "you will never repeal the
law. [Repealing the ban is] a great idea."
Shalikashvili is "among more than 50 retired
generals and admirals who have said it is time to rethink
the policy." The piece also reports on the
different opinions of the presidential candidates on
the policy: Barack Obama is for repealing it, while
John McCain wants to maintain the status quo.
Now to an
antigay law that is being
repealed: Impossible as it would be to believe, the
United States since 1987 has made it nearly
impossible for HIV-positive immigrants and
visitors who weren't seeking asylum to get
visas or green cards. Until now: National Public Radio ran a report about a new bill passed by the
Senate that would end this ban. The group Immigration
Equality says it expects President Bush to sign it
into law.
And finally: On
the isle of Lesbos, its citizens must deal with the fact
that same-sex-lovin' ladies get to use the
"lesbian" moniker. Three Lesbos
residents wanted to ban the use of the word in reference to
gay women, but an court in Athens ruled against them.
As the BBC notes: "The man spearheading the case,
publisher Dimitris Lambrou, had claimed that
international dominance of the word in its sexual context
violated the human rights of the islanders -- who call
themselves Lesbians -- and disgraces them around the
world."
Actually, some
lesbians might argue that Lambrou is the disgrace.