HOMOPHOBIA IN MASSACHUSETTS

(coming to an area near you)

by Kelly Clark — the lady in the pew — February, 2004

A determined homophobic element is driving its agenda throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And don’t kid yourself: if it hasn’t already taken root where you live, well, it’s just a matter of time.

This phenomenon was more than evident at a rally held recently on the Boston Common. Sponsored by folks who want to prevent the redefinition of marriage, the event drew homophobes like Liza Minelli draws the in-your-face-I’m-gay-and-proud-of-it crowd.

I know. I was there. And what I heard and saw confirmed, once again, what I’ve known for a long time.

I’ll get into this more in a minute but first —

Did I ever tell you about my cousin Sarah?

Sarah and I grew up in Michigan as “best friends.” And, although we spent a lot of time together, it wasn’t until we were in our early twenties that I realized there was something different about her. While I was interested in the opposite sex, Sarah — not her real name: her real name is “Sally” — was more attracted to females.

While I can’t exactly pinpoint when I realized this about Sarah, I might’ve gotten my first clue when we double-dated one evening. My future husband escorted me.

Sarah’s date was named “Katie.”

Looking back, I have no idea whether or not the rest of the family knew — or cared — about Sarah’s attraction to the same sex. Nobody really made a big deal about it. Sarah certainly didn’t.

Flash forward a decade or so —

I had moved to Boston while Sarah pursued a law career in Michigan. We kept in touch, of course, but sporadically. Each of us had her own life to lead, I guess.

Anyway, one evening I flipped on the tube just as the old Ellen Degeneres sitcom began. I’d heard about it, of course — who hadn’t? — but had never actually seen it. With nothing better to do, I watched it. And just as it ended, the phone rang.

It was Sarah! “How fitting,” I remember thinking.

And then made my disastrous venture into the world of hipness.

The conversation went something like this:

Sarah: “Hey! I was just thinking about you and thought I’d — ”

Me: “SARAH! Of all people! You’ll never guess what I just watched!”

Sarah: “Huh?”

Me: “On TV, I mean. Go on! Guess!”

Sarah: “Uh — Jeopardy?”

Me: “No, silly. I just watched ELLEN!”

Sarah: “Ellen?”

Me (babbling): “Yes, and I just loved it!”

Sarah: “Oh.”

Me (sinking into gush mode): “Isn’t she absolutely hilarious?”

[silence]

Me: “Sarah? You still there?”

Sarah: “Yeah, I’m here. But — ”

Me (oblivious): “Did you see it? It just ended.”

Sarah: “To tell you the truth, I’ve never seen it.”

Me (stunned): “You’re kidding.”

Sarah: “Nope.”

Me (sinking fast and not even realizing it): “But why????”

Sarah: “It’s not a comedy show, cousin. It’s propaganda.”

Me (feeling, accurately, like a moron): “Oh.”

After a few awkward moments, we were able to chat lightly, mostly about family news. But it was painfully clear to me that Sarah was eager to make this call as brief as possible. Who could blame her?

Who could blame my cousin for wanting to escape a homophobe?

What’s a “homophobe?”

Somebody who is afraid of homosexuals. Somebody who, against all reason, has endowed homosexual people with all sorts of powers.

In my case, I gave Sarah the power to judge my coolness, my tolerance, my worldliness, my compassion — power she’d never asked for, never wanted, never would use. Why not?

Because, like most people saddled with same-sex attraction, Sarah isn’t hell bent on turning her sexual preference into a bleeping religion, collecting converts wherever she goes!

Back to the Boston Common rally —

I wandered over to an area presumably reserved for The Other Side. The people who were agitating for same-sex “marriage.”

The media called them “gay activists.”

One thing though? They weren’t gay. I mean, they weren’t homosexual people. For the most part, they were heterosexuals.

Heterosexual homophobes.

I mean, it was pretty obvious. When you see male and female couples holding hands, or with their arms around each other, it’s a safe bet that they aren’t “gay.” No matter what their signs say.

And they were afraid — very, very afraid.

How come, you ask?

I think it has a lot to do with social acceptance. Getting it, I mean.

The notion that heterosexual people require homosexual approval in order to achieve social acceptability might seem ironic to you. But how else do you explain it?

As I wove my way through the gay-activists-who-weren’t-actually-gay, I couldn’t help but overhear some interesting comments. Oh, well, I suppose I could have helped it. But, hey, what’s the point of eavesdropping, if not to hear interesting comments?

Anyway, one couple appeared to be having a disagreement. Actually, the kid with them — about ten years old, I’d guess — seemed to have started it.

Kid: “Mom? What’s a `queer’?”

Mom (horrified): “Where did you hear such a word?”

Kid: (pointing) “It’s on that sign over there.”

[Indeed it was. I believe the precise words were “Queer Power.”]

Mom: “I don’t want to hear that word again.”

Dad: “Honey, it’s okay. Nothing wrong with `queer.’”

Kid: “What’s a `queer,’ though?”

Mom: “Well, I don’t care. It’s not a nice word.”

Dad: “Things have changed, hon. `Queer’ is cool.”

Mom (uncertainly): “Are you sure?”

Dad: “Hey, it’s on the sign. And then there’s that show, `Queer Eye’ — ”

Mom: “Yes, but I don’t think it’s okay for us to use that word. I mean, I think it’s only for them.”

Dad: “Do you think so?”

Kid (growing impatient): “But what’s a QUEER?”

Dad (a bit nervous): “Timmy, not so loud.”

Mom: “I suppose we could ask somebody.”

Dad: “Oh yeah? Who?”

Mom (growing irritable): “How should I know? I thought you were the one with all the gay friends!”

Dad (testily): “What do you expect me to do, just come out and ask?”

Kid: “Hey, I’m hungry and I’m cold!”

Mom and Dad: “Be quiet Timmy!”

I didn’t hear the rest of the conversation because at that point the rally participants began loudly chanting, once again:

“Let the people VOTE!”

Just as well.

Because, frankly, I didn’t want to be around if the kid decided to ask his father to define “metrosexual.”

And about this “let the people vote” thing:

That essentially was the theme of the rally. People are outraged — and rightfully so! — that the redefinition of marriage in Massachusetts was determined by a slim majority of unelected judges.

People — those against redefining marriage, anyway — believe that the issue should be up to the voters. Fair enough.

You know what I’m afraid of, though?

That the voters will ultimately give the nod to same-sex marriage!

Remember: I live in Massachusetts. We’ve been know to vote in wacky ways.

Consider, for example, our two United States senators.

Consider, too, that Massachusetts “Catholic” priests — Father Thomas J. Carroll, S.J., of Boston’s Jesuit Urban Center; Father James F. Keenan, S.J., of the Cambridge Weston Jesuit School of Theology, and Father Richard P. Lewandowski, of Fitchburg’s Saint Camillus Parish — testified last Spring against an amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Let’s just say I’m not all that sanguine when it comes to the “Let the People Vote” mantra.

You know what the really absurd thing is?

I don’t believe that most homosexual people want to “get married.”

Read what Los Angeles radio personality— and incidentally, “openly gay man” — Al Rantel wrote this month:

“Who said gays want to get married in the first place? Let’s look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts; however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.”

No. This issue, while perhaps initially spearheaded by radical homosexual activists, is getting its real push from wimpy heterosexual homophobes.

Homophobes convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the lack of gay approval is tantamount to death. Or even worse: social ostracism.

Homophobes who lack the courage to even hint at the fact that sexual reversion therapy, for example, is at all an option.

Homophobes who insist — against all common sense — that this is somehow a “civil rights” issue.

Heterosexual homophobes who merrily, and with — dare I say it — gay abandon — make utter asses out of themselves by participating in every tawdry, sleazy “Gay Pride” event that comes down the pike.

Heterosexual homophobes who don’t give a tinker’s damn about the soul of the homosexually active person at all.

Because what, after all, is the worth of an immortal soul when stacked up against, say, an invitation to the right party?

Here’s a thought: let’s be discriminating.

The word “discrimination,” in my opinion, too often gets a bad rap.

The Massachusetts bishops, while actively and definitively condemning same-sex “marriage,” still take great pains to make it plain that they are not “discriminating” against homosexuals. (To be fair, they use the term “unjustly discriminating.”)

The rally organizers, and some speakers, made it clear that they were not “discriminating” against homosexuals.

My simple question is this:

Why the bleep not???

Homosexual behavior is serious sin. Shouldn’t we discriminate against sin?

I think we should. Because serious sin leads to the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell.

Now there’s something to be phobic about. Isn’t it?

Until next time,

Kelly

End notes:

Hey, thanks for being here, and for reading this.

Please remember every one mentioned in this column in your prayers. Including me. I pray for you all the time.

For Al Rantel’s complete column, see:

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

For what, to my mind, should be required reading for every Catholic regarding this issue, see Leila Lawler’s recent Catholic World News column:

Has Catholic corruption led toward same-sex "marriage"?

Subscription to CWN is required to read Lawler’s article. It’s worth it. For subscription information, see:

http://www.cwnews.com/visitors/subscribe.cfm

And now for the fine print:

Kelly Clark is your basic nobody. She serves on no parish councils, belongs to none of the myriad of designer-chic "Catholic" groups, or any Catholic group, for that matter, other than the Roman Catholic Church. Holding no theology degrees, she has no desire to see herself or any of her sex wearing a clerical collar. She figures Jesus knew what He was doing when He established His Church, and also figures that it’s His Church, not hers, and not yours. She’s an ordinary parishioner of Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston.

Use the links on the left to e-mail Kelly, to visit her parish, read past columns, and check out other cool stuff. (If you don’t see any links on the left, you’ve probably been directed here by a search engine. Just point your browser to http://www.pewlady.com to get to the main site.)

Copyright: Kelly Clark, 2004. I don’t care if you share this stuff with others. In fact, I hope you do! Only I’d appreciate it if you’d link me, or print it off as it is. In other words, don’t change anything. Thanks.

“The Lady in the Pew” column is updated regularly, God willing. To be notified of updates, please e-mail me. The link’s on the left.

“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us.”