The Mad Professah Lectures

There has been a lot of discussion of the movie Bros in the last few weeks after its opening weekend box-office gross was below expectations and Hollywood basically labeled the film as a "flop." Writer and star of the film Billy Eichner said on social media that "straight people [...] didn't show up for Bros" and that it was "disappointing, but that's what it was." That tweet was later deleted but the audience reception to an explicitly gay rom-com that was released by a major Hollywood studio in movie theaters was bound to get a lot of tongues wagging and think pieces written and read. However, despite the historic nature of the release of Bros, in the end I think the main reason is that it's just not a very good movie, and that may be the reason why ore people didn't rush out to see it and make it a box-office success. (Right now it's still an open question of whether it will make a profit, but it seems very unlikely .)

To be more precise, I do think that there's a version of Bros which could have been a very good movie. The major flaw in Bros is the casting of Eichner as the lead character. Eichner plays Bobby, a somewhat neurotic podcast host and executive director of the inaugural National Museum of LGBTQ History. He is happy to go on Tinder and Grindr "dates" to hookup with other New York City gays.  Eventually he runs into Aaron (played by Luke MacFarlane), a hunky, handsome estate lawyer who hates his job and is also happy to "play the field." Eichner's Bobby spends a lot of his time yelling his (admittedly funny) lines to anyone within earshot, which includes his coworkers, his straight friends, Aaron, Aaron's mom and many more. The first problem with casting Eichner as the lead is that he doesn't have the dramatic chops to provide a nuanced portrayal of Bobby, so he comes across as a bitter queen. I think it is at least possible that a more nuanced actor could have played the role as written where Bobby is still annoying and acerbic but in a way that the audience could still root for him to succeed. I appreciate what Eichner was trying to do with Bros: create a gay rom-com without sanding over the rough (or unfamiliar to non-gay folks) edges of urban gay life to not scare off the straight people. But even as a gay man, I thought Bobby's character was A LOT and problematic in multiple ways. (He has a LOT of opinions on how gay people comport themselves which frankly would have seemed homophobic or demeaning if said by a straight character and even by the end of the movie it's not clear that his opinion about other gays has really changed that much.)

The second problem with casting Eichner as the lead is the resultant glaring lack of diversity in the two leads. In 2022 to think that a gay rom-com should have two gay white dudes as the lead is just hubris and tone deaf. (It stuns me that the coin-counters and pencil pushers at the studio thought this concept would be one that is worth spending $20-30 million on production and marketing. But then again, how much do you want to bet these fiduciary decisions were not being made by a diverse set of greenlighters at the studio?) Yes, the film (cleverly) tries to overcome this lack of diversity in the leads by adding cameos from gay icons as well as making Bobby's workplace a setting with a tapestry of the members of the LGBTQ rainbow. There's a butch lesbian, not one but two(!) transwomen of color, a bisexual and a Generation Z non-binary person who constantly streams their life online. But in now way are these characters are central to the story. The other notable bit of diverse casting in Bros was in an (actually pretty funny) hookup scene that Bobby has with a muscular, masculine Black guy after meeting him at the gym during a "straight-acting" phase. The hookup doesn't end well when Bobby's post-coital voice is an octave higher than his pre-coital one and this revelation that Bobby's butchness was a facade (unsurprisingly) freaks the Black guy out, but maybe not for the reason we might think at first. "Well, would you have hooked up with me if I had talked like this before?" Bobby asks, and the guy says, "Yeah, probably, because you're hot." "Thanks!" Bobby says. "But not now! Now you just seem weird!". On the way out Bobby notices a huge Barbra Streisand poster next to the door, which shows that even butch Black gay guys in New York City love their divas! Yay, intersectionality!

With all that said there are lots of good parts of Bros to like. There are fun cameos by gay icons like Harvey Fierstein (Torch Song Trilogy), Bowen Yang (Fire Island), and Debra Messing (Will and Grace) to name just a few. Aaron is very easy on the eyes to look at, and we see a LOT of him (and his well-sculpted body), as the film doesn't hesitate from depicting typical sexual situations gay men like Aaron and Bobby get into in an urban mecca like New York City (and Provincetown). That fact that almost gthe entire cast (even the straight roles) are played by well-known out LGBT actors is kinda cool. Also, the script is firmly committed to being a parody of Lifetime romantic comedies (this is a fun inside joke, because the actor who plays Aaron has been in more than a dozen of them) and these gags are well-executed. The film has interesting things to say about body image in gay men and how the trappings of (hyper)masculinity distort how gay men interact with each other in multiple social settings (from hookup apps to gyms to going out to even just walking down the street).

But in the end, although the audience is supposed to be rooting for Aaron and Bobby to get together, it's hard to make that sale because I, for one, didn't buy that the two are actually right for each other. Bobby has a LOT of internalized homophobia which comes out as extreme criticism of modern gay life and an reluctance/inability to commit. Aaron has the more interesting character arc as he makes changes to his life when the initial relationship between Aaron and Bobby doesn't work out because of both of their insecurities. (This is not a spoiler because of course in any rom-com the two star-crossed lovers don't live happily ever after after the first fling!) Another interesting twist on the rom-com is that the movie ends with the two just promising "to date each other for three month and re-assess" not a lifetime commitment (sic) and that gives the overall plot verisimilitude with these characters.

Overall, I agree with some of the reviews who say that even though Bros was not the historic achievement Bill Eichner wanted it to be, it is still a milestone in LGBT cinema that he should be proud of and I am glad it was made and exists in the media landscape. After all, for true equality, LGBTQ people need to have the right to have all sorts of media telling our stories, and some will be crappy and some will be sublime. (My primary complaint is that we still really haven't had a diverse LGBT film that connects with today's audiences.) The one thing Bros did do successfully is to bring us closer to the day where the future of LGBTQ representation in the media is not dependent on any single vehicle.

Title: Bros.
Director: Nicholas Stoller.
Running Time: 1 hour, 55 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong sexual content, language throughout and some drug use.
Release Date: September 30, 2022.
Viewing Date: October 3, 2022.

Writing: B+.
Acting: B.
Visuals: B-.
Impact: A-.

Overall Grade: B/B+ (3.16/4.0).

Star Rating:  ★★★½☆☆  (3.5/5.0).

Winter’s Orbit has received significant acclaim for its insightful writing and emotional resonance. The central plot revolves around the tried-and-true romance trope of the “fake-dating scenario.” This is when the two protagonists have to demonstrate for external stakeholders that they are a romantic couple when in reality they are complete strangers to each other. Of course, the two strangers get to know each other better as they spend copious amounts of time together in order to bolster the verisimilitude of their fake relationship and (inevitably) romantic sparks fly in reality. It’s another iteration of “Love Conquers All.”

In Winter’s Orbit the main characters are Kiem and Jainan. Kiem is a grandson of the Emperor and has the title of Prince. Jainan was married to Kiem’s cousin Taam, another Prince. The Jainan-Taam marriage also served the diplomatic purpose of uniting the two worlds of Iskaat and Thea, respectively. However, when Prince Taam is killed (which may or may not have been an accident) the Emperor asks (read: commands) Kiem to marry Jainan in order to maintain the appearance of good positive relations between Iskaat and Thea. This is important because the decennial review of the treaty that Iskaat has with a galactic superpower called The Resolution that provides interstellar communication, trade and travel is upcoming and political stability and domestic tranquility are factors the Resolution will consider during the treaty review process.

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller is a legendary book about a legendary gay love story. Being gay myself, I had heard about this book from several gay acquaintances and had been warned about the powerful emotional wallop it delivers. I can confirm that it is very easy to become emotionally invested in this story about Patroclus and Achilles, told from the perspective of the lesser known Greek. There’s a reason this book has more than 310,000 ratings averaging well over 4.2 on a 5-point scale on Goodreads. It connects on a visceral level with the vast majority of readers; this is an amazing feat since at its heart The Song of Achilles is a love story between two men (both mortal, but one with a goddess for a mother).

For anyone who has even a passing interest in Greek and Roman mythology, The Song of Achilles is a treat. Many, many famous and familiar names fill its pages. To name just a few: Odysseus, Heracles(Hercules), Apollo, Athena, Agamemnon, Helen, et cetera. And there are many more included whose names you probably should know, but don’t. For me, these were people like Peleus (Achilles’ mortal father), Thetis (Achilles’ mother, a sea nymph), Pyrrhus (Achilles’ son), Briseis (longtime female companion to Patroclus and Achilles), Hector (hero of Troy) and Diomedes (one of key leaders of the siege of Troy).

The Song of Achilles is told from the perspective of Patroclus from beginning to end. We learn that he was also a prince, the son of Menoitius, who himself was the son and grandson of kings. Through a horrible accident at the age of 10 he ended up killing another young boy, the son of another king (there were so many tiny Greek kingdoms at this time that the land was chock full of princes). As a result, Patroclus was exiled and taken in by King Peleus, Achilles’ father. Patroclus was shy and Achilles was literally the golden child, with bright blond hair, green eyes, a perfect physical specimen of male beauty (even at the young age of 10) and the center of attention wherever he went.

Essentially from this point on Achilles and Patroclus grow up together, becoming inseparable companions, beginning as platonic friends and eventually becoming soul mates. As told from the viewpoint of Patroclus, the deepening of their relationship is detailed, heartwarming and incredibly romantic. Miller makes the interesting decision to downplay the presence of homophobia in Greek society as having any impact on how Achilles and Patroclus view themselves or their relationship, while all the whole making it very clear that EVERYONE knew that the two were lovers. (At one point the witty Odysseus says, "One tent's enough, I hope? I've heard you prefer to share. Rooms and bedrolls, both, they say.") This is somewhat explained by the cultural practice at the time that boys often took other boys as lovers “in their youth” but that there was an expectation that on reaching the age of maturity (at 16!) men would find a woman to settle down and make a family with.

Soon after Achilles turns sixteen, the Trojan war begins and it is fascinating to see how many of the major players viewed the conflict at its onset. For example, no one expected that it would take over ten years to "rescue Helen." Since Achilles was known to be the most skilled warrior since Heracles, the Greeks were extremely confident of their eventual victory, but they were unaware the role that the Gods (especially Apollo) would play in the conflict. (Or they thought that the gods on their side were more powerful than the gods on the other side.) Tragically, they were wrong about multiple aspects of the war.

One aspect of the book which enhances it’s salience and emotional impact is the fact that despite the story being so well-known The Song of Achilles still provides surprises. You probably already know the contours of the story (Troy falls, Patroclus dies, Achilles dies, Helen lives) so one can't really say these are spoilers. But there is a fair amount of predestination; Achilles was told his fate (by his immortal mother who heard it from the Fates) that if he doesn’t go to Troy he would not have eternal fame, that if he went to Troy he would die there, and that he would not die before Hector. All of these “spoilers” in the story turn out to be true, and it’s this foreknowledge that is absolutely devastating to the reader, especially since Patroclus is aware of all the predictions as well, and basically unable to do anything about it. It's hard to read the last 10% of the book without being emotionally devastated.

The Song of Achilles is both a tragedy and a love story; it’s a familiar tale with a completely unfamiliar and riveting plot at its core. The motivations and motives of the main characters are so recognizable yet simultaneously frustrating that it is hard to overstate the emotional investment of the reader in the resolutions of their conflicts. It’s a book that stays with you for a really long time. And to me, that’s the best kind! I'm definitely looking forward to picking up Circe, by the same author.

Title: The Song of Achilles.
Author: Madeline Miller.
Format: Kindle.
Format: 389 pages.
Publisher: HarperCollins.
Date Published: March 6, 2012.
Date Read: April 14, 2021.

GOODREADS RATING: ★★★★★  (5.0/5.0).

OVERALL GRADE: A/A (4.08/4.0).

PLOT: A.
IMAGERY: A.
IMPACT: A+.
WRITING: A.

The Supreme Court finally has granted certiorari (agreed to hear and make a ruling in) for multiple cases of interest to LGBT citizens today. The question of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination "because of sex" includes sexual orientation (and gender identity) has been an increasingly important one. I say finally also because this question had been pending at every Friday meeting of the Justices since January 2019.

The 2019 Williams Institute Moot Court competition in Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law  (in which I was a volunteer judge)  revolved around this very question as well as whether the "ministerial exception" prevented an employment discrimination lawsuit by a bisexual employee under Title VII.

There is a current split between circuit courts on the question of whether gay people are covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and thus the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide this  question by consolidating Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. In Zarda, the Second Circuit ruled that Altitude Express impermissibly discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation against Don Zarda, a sky-diving instructor (who was killed tragically in 2014 but the lawsuit has continued in his name by his surviving partner and family). Altitude Express's appeal of that ruling is being consolidated with an 11th Circuit ruling in Bostock which refused to do an en banc reconsideration of its holding that child welfare services coordinator working for Clayton County did not have a right to sue for sexual orientation discrimination and gender stereotyping.

Additionally, the Supreme Court also agreed to hear, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case of a transgender employee fired by a funeral home; the business is challenging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's decision that gender identity is covered under Title VII's sex discrimination ban. Today's Queer Quote is the issue in that case:

Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

 Price Waterhouse is a longtime precedent case (from 1989) which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex (gender) stereotyping, ruling that this is covered under Title VII.

Presumably these will be some of the most significant cases of the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term, and be released as decisions in June 2020, right in the thick of the 2020 presidential campaign is heating up (hopefully both nominees will  be known by then).

The doubt over whether LGBT people are protected by federal law against invidious  discrimination based in sexual orientation and gender identity is why the Equality Act was introduced into Congress earlier this year.

Hat/tip to SCOTUSblog

Israel Folau, a star rugby player in Australia has repeatedly made multiple homophobic comments on social media that are religious-based (they usually involve a statement that "homosexuals" will go to hell if they do not "repent" or "God's plan for homosexuals was hell"). Interestingly, Rugby Australia has announced that it intends to cancel his lucrative playing contract for violations of its "code of conduct":

“At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values. 

“Following the events of last year, Israel was warned formally and repeatedly about the expectations of him as player for the Wallabies and NSW Waratahs with regards to social media use and he has failed to meet those obligations. It was made clear to him that any social media posts or commentary that is in any way disrespectful to people because of their sexuality will result in disciplinary action. 

“All professional Rugby players in Australia are bound by the Code of Conduct and there is a process in place for any disciplinary matter. We appreciate that this particular matter will attract significant interest, but due process must be followed.”

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, an LGBT public policy think tank, has released their latest estimate of the percentage of the size of the LGBT population in the United States. The number is 11.3 million, or 4.5% of U.S. adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Hat/tip Williams Institute

There has been longtime speculation abut whether Bert and Ernie, two puppets on the Sesame Street television show who are depicted as living together, are "gay." Puppeteer and director Frank Oz, who created the puppets said on twitter that the two are not gay. Oz said, "I created Bert. I know what and who he is." These quotes are in response to an exclusive interview in Queerty with Mark Saltzman a writer for the show from 1981-1990 said that he based the interactions of Bert and Ernie on his own longtime relationship with his male partner. "I don’t think I’d know how else to write them, but as a loving couple," Saltzman said.

However, Sesame Workshop, the producer of Sesame Street released a statement which is today's Queer Quote denying (again) that Bert and Ernie are gay:

As we have always said, Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.

Regardless of what Sesame Workshop says, it has not stopped other people from recognizing that Bert and Ernie behave like and resemble a same-sex couple.

In a victory for tens of millions of LGBT individuals, the Supreme Court of India has finally invalidated India's colonial-era sodomy law, decriminalizing homosexuality and ruling that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in a near 500-page decision.

The battle to have Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code struck down has taken decades. In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled the nation's sodomy law unconstitutional but the ruling was appealed to the highest court in the land even though the Indian Government agreed to abide by the decision in 2012. Then in 2013 that Court upheld the law in a shocking ruling that maintained the ban on "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." However, the Court agreed to re-hear that decision in 2014 and today's result follows that litigation.

The opinion is quite comprehensive and ends with some stunning conclusions:

(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual
sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;
(ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to
the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by
the Constitution;
(iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual
intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour
are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;
(iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal
citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law;
and
(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled.

This an amazing victory for sexual minorities! Note the highlighted section which indicates that the ruling goes far beyond just striking down sodomy laws (like 2003's Lawrence vs Texas).

Today's Queer Quote is from Jessica Stern of OutRight Action International (formerly the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), who reacted to the ruling by saying, "The sodomy law that became the model everywhere, from Uganda to Singapore to the U.K. itself, premiered in India, becoming the confusing and dehumanizing standard replicated around the world [and] today’s historic outcome will reverberate across India and the world."

Woo hoo!

Today is May 17, the day selected to celebrate sexual and gender diversities. Officially it is known as the "International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia" or #IDAHOT.

May 17 is chosen to commemrate the anniversary of the date in 1990 when the World Health Organization declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

The Williams Institute at UCLA has released another report on the demographics of adult LGBT population in the United States. They also have an interactive website where you can explore this data for yourself.

One key result is that there are well over 10 million LGBT adults in the United States, which is roughly 4.1% of the adult population. However, there is wide variation in the states in which the LGBT population resides. The District of Columbia has the highest percentage of its population self-reporting as LGBT:

Check it out for yourself!

A new report on LGBT discrimination was released recently by National Public Radio. It was conducted jointly with Harvard Chan School of Public Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and NPR. The main result is that discrimination against LGBT people is pervasive in the United States.

The primary conclusion (on page 29-30 of the 64 page report) is excerpted here:

LGBTQ Americans report significant personal experiences of discrimination related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. In the context of individual or interpersonal discrimination, a majority of all LGBTQ people have personally experienced slurs (57%) or offensive comments (53%) about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, a majority of all LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have personally experienced threats or non-sexual harassment (57%), sexual harassment (51%), or violence (51%) because of their sexuality or gender identity, and 34% say they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been harassed or questioned about their presence in a bathroom.  

In the context of institutional discrimination, at least one in five LGBTQ people report being personally discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity when applying for jobs (20%), when being paid equally or considered for promotions (22%), or when trying to rent a room or apartment or buy a house (22%). More than a quarter of LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been unfairly treated by the courts (26%) or by the police (26%) because of their LGBTQ identity.

I encourage you to read the entire report, "Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views of LGBTQ Americans," for yourself.

There's a new poll out from Pew and the Press which shows that societal acceptance of homosexuality is continuing to grow, with the latest numbers showing that 70% of respondents say "homosexuality should be accepted by society" while only 24% of responded says "homosexuality should be discouraged by society."

However, in this week's episode of Saturday Politics I want to call attention to the partisan differences on this question. 83% of Democrats support societal acceptance of homosexuality. A majority of Democrats have been supportive of homosexuality since (at least) 1994 while a majority of Republicans have not ever been supportive of homosexuality until this year. In the latest poll, 54% of Republicans now say they are supportive of homosexuality.

Pew summarizes the results:

While there has been an increase in acceptance of homosexuality across all partisan and demographic groups, Democrats remain more likely than Republicans to say homosexuality should be accepted by society. 

Overall, 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while only 13% say it should be discouraged. The share of Democrats who say homosexuality should be accepted by society is up 20 points since 2006 and up from 54% who held this view in 1994. 

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, more say homosexuality should be accepted (54%) than discouraged (37%) by society. This is the first time a majority of Republicans have said homosexuality should be accepted by society in Pew Research Center surveys dating to 1994. Ten years ago, just 35% of Republicans held this view, little different than the 38% who said this in 1994.

There is an update in the infamous Michael Johnson case: where a 23-year-old Black gay man was sentenced to 30 years in prison under Missouri's discriminatory HIV criminalization statute after a trial influenced by homophobia and racism. Happily, the 30-year sentence was overturned last year.
The news comes that Johnson has agreed to a plea deal where he gets a 10-year prison sentence (including the 4 years he has already served). He is entering an "Alford plea" which says that he agrees that the state has enough evidence to convict him of a crime.

The Center for HIV Law and Public Policy issued a press release on the Johnson case:

New York, NY, September 21, 2017 – Today, in conclusion to a prosecution short on fairness and riddled with questions about racism and homophobia, Michael Johnson entered a plea in the St. Charles County Circuit Court in Missouri. Earlier this year, a state appeals court vacated his original conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct that, according to the court, made Johnson’s first trial “fundamentally unfair.” 

However, because Missouri’s HIV criminal law hinges liability on whether or not the defendant can prove he disclosed his HIV status prior to sex – a virtual impossibility in most instances – Johnson decided to accept a plea deal that credits him with time served. Under Missouri’s law, one of the harshest in the country, Johnson could have faced up to 96 years in prison if found guilty. 

“It is disturbing that Michael is not yet a free man and was not exonerated after his years-long struggle for justice, but we respect and support his decision not to risk a life behind bars,” said Mayo Schreiber, Deputy Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP). “It likely is the end of his case, but our work to bring an end to HIV criminal laws like Missouri’s continues.” 

Johnson, who was 21-years-old at the beginning of this case, entered a no-contest plea to charges that he had sex with partners without first advising them of his HIV status. In exchange, he has accepted a sentence of 10 years in state prison, which will include time already served since his arrest nearly four years ago.  He previously had been sentenced to 30 years in prison before the appeals court threw out the original conviction. 

Prior to his arrest in 2013, Johnson was a promising young college student and star athlete. His prosecution has drawn condemnation from state and national organizations and individuals uniformly outraged by his conviction and opposed to these fundamentally unfair laws being used to prosecute people living with HIV and, disproportionately, like all other criminal laws in the United States, people of color.

In related news, this week the California state legislature passed SB 239, which modernizes the state's laws around HIV transmission so that HIV is treated like other communicable diseases.

Hat tip to TowleRoad

The gay app GRINDR is now valued at nearly a quarter billion dollars following the sale of the gay-owned and operated company to a Chinese-based firm named Beijing Kunlun Tech. Joel Simkhai created the app in 2009 and says he will remain as CEO despite selling the remaining 38% of the company to Kunlun for $152 million dollars this week.

The takeover comes at a time when China, the world’s most populous nation but lagging the West in achieving equal legal status for its homosexual citizens, is cultivating a lucrative industry catering to the social needs of the gay community. 

Grindr, founded in 2009 in the United States, is the world’s largest LGBT social-network application, counting over 27 million registered users across 196 countries and territories across the world. 

The Chinese company expected to bank on Grindr as a new growth engine, as the eight-year-old app proved to be a cash cow that had posted US$13.7 million in net profit for 2014, thanks to its rapidly growing membership.

Hat/tip to Queerty

18-time major champion Martina Navratilova is calling out 22-major champion Margaret Court for her rampant homophobia and arguably racist beliefs by writing an open letter calling for a renaming of 'Margaret Court Arena" at the Australian Open in Melbourne. Last week, the 74-year-old Court announced that she was going to boycott Qantas, her country's national airline, because the company had endorsed marriage equality, which is still not the law of the land in Australia, although a heated public policy debate  about the issue has been ongoing for years.

This excerpt from Navratilova's letter is today's Queer Quote:

It is now clear exactly who Court is: an amazing tennis player, and a racist and a homophobe. Her vitriol is not just an opinion. She is actively trying to keep LGBT people from getting equal rights (note to Court: we are human beings, too). She is demonising trans kids and trans adults everywhere. 

And now, linking LGBT to Nazis, communists, the devil? This is not OK. This is in fact sick and it is dangerous. Kids will suffer more because of this continuous bashing and stigmatising of our LGBT community.

Interestingly, the debate over Margaret Court's comments is prompting tennis players to publicly declare where they stand on LGBT equality. ATP World #1 Andy Murray made this remark at the French open this week:

"I don't see why anyone has a problem with two people who love each other getting married. If it's two men, two women, that's great. I don't see why it should matter. It's not anyone else's business."

Now that's a winner, Andy!

I previously blogged about the difference in attitudes towards LGBT discrimination by various religious denominationt, as reported by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

Today I want to discuss how perceptions of the prevalence of discrimination against various groups changes with partisan identification. The PRRI summarizes their findings by discussing how Republicans and Democrats view discro,omayopmthis way:

Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian, Transgender People
More than six in ten Americans say gay and lesbian people (61%) and transgender people (64%) face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today. 

However, there are sharp partisan differences on this question. Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to say gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination in the country today (79% vs. 40%, respectively). Notably, a majority (57%) of Republicans do not believe gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination. Independents largely reflect the views of the public overall. An identical number (79%) of Democrats believe transgender people face a lot of discrimination, while fewer than half (48%) of Republicans agree. Again, the views of independents generally align with Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Whites vs. Blacks
Nearly six in ten (58%) Americans say blacks face a lot of discrimination in American society today, while only three in ten (30%) say the same of whites. More Americans now say blacks face a considerable degree of discrimination in U.S. society than in 2013 when slightly more than half (52%) of the public expressed this view.² 

Notably, Republicans are significantly more likely to say that whites, rather than blacks, experience a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today (43% vs. 27%, respectively). Democrats and independents are far more likely to say blacks experience a lot of discrimination than to say the same about whites (82% vs. 19% and 59% vs. 30%, respectively). The partisan gap in perceptions of discrimination against blacks has increased substantially over the last four years, driven primarily by shifts among Democrats. In 2013, about two-thirds (66%) of Democrats compared to roughly one-third (32%) of Republicans expressed the view that discrimination against blacks in the U.S. is common. Notably, white and nonwhite Democrats recorded nearly identical changes in opinion. 

Discrimination Against Christians vs. MuslimsA similar pattern emerges in views of the relative amount of discrimination faced by Muslims and Christians in American society. Americans are twice as likely to say Muslims face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (66% vs. 33%, respectively). Again, there are sizable differences by party affiliation, religious background, and generation. 

Democrats are more than four times as likely to say Muslims (85%) face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (21%). Republicans, in contrast, are about equally as likely to say both Christians (48%) and Muslims (45%) experience a lot of discrimination in the US today. Independents’ attitudes mirror those of Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Immigrants
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans say immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today, while one-third (33%) believe they do not. Americans are sharply divided by party and generation. 

Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to say immigrants face a substantial degree of discrimination in society (82% vs. 41%, respectively). Roughly two-thirds (65%) of independents also believe immigrants confront a great deal of discrimination.

There's a lot more information at the PRRI website. I encourage you to check it out!

The case of Michael Johnson has been a cause celebre for years, an emblematic of a toxic stew of race, (homo)sexuality, homophobia, AIDSphobia and criminal justice that produces (and is produced by) HIV criminalization statutes. Johnson is a Black gay man who at age 23 was sentenced to 30 years in a Missouri court in summer 2015 because the former college wrestler did not disclose to his male partners that he  knew he was HIV-positive before they engaged in unprotected sexual activity (some of which was recorded on cellphones). This week comes the news that an appellate court has overturned that draconian sentence (conviction for 2nd degree murder would have received less jail time) and ordered a new trial.

The Washington Post reports:

During the trial, Johnson remained adamant that he informed his partners of the positive HIV test. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, however, impeached his testimony using three clips of cellphone conversations, recorded while Johnson was jailed. In one snippet of phone conversation, Johnson admitted he was just “pretty sure” he had informed his partners he was HIV positive. 

After slightly more than two hours of deliberation, a jury declared Johnson guilty of three crimes, all felonies under Missouri law: one count of recklessly infecting a sexual partner with HIV, one count of recklessly exposing a partner to HIV and three counts of attempting to recklessly infect a partner with HIV. In July 2015, Judge Jon A. Cunningham of the Circuit Court for St. Charles County sentenced Johnson to 30 years in prison. 

[...] 

Presiding Missouri Court of Appeals’ Eastern District Judge James M. Dowd wrote Tuesday that Johnson’s trial was rendered “fundamentally unfair” by the prosecutors; they tarried too long handing over the cellphone calls recorded while Johnson was in the county jail. “The State’s blatant discovery violation here is inexcusable,” the judges concluded.

Johnson's lawyer Lawrence Lustberg, the ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal celebrated this week's result. Lustberg's comment is today's Queer Quote:

"Statutes like the one used to prosecute Mr. Johnson are inherently problematic, as they promote stigma and animus towards people living with HIV in violation of their legal and constitutional rights."

The ACLU notes that the new trial is being ordered due to prosecutorial misconduct and not the underlying constitutional frailty of the criminal statute Johnson was charged and sentenced under.
MadProfessah will continue to follow this case closely and urge readers to contribute to organizations like Lambda Legal, ACLU and the Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Hat/tip to Washington Blade and Washington Post.

The surprising election results in 2016 keep coming. This week the little-known country of The Gambia, where Yahya Jammeh, the leader of the country for the last 22  years was defeated in an election. Jammeh is a virulent homophobe, notorious for his statements about LGBT people, especially gay men.

Joe Jervis blogs:

In November 2014, Jammeh made homosexuality punishable by life in prison. The following month the US dropped Gambia from an African free trade agreement in part over Jammeh’s anti-LGBT crackdown. Several months later Jammeh issued a public promise to “slit the throats” of all homosexuals, prompting a denouncement from UN national security advisor Susan Rice. It’s unknown if life for Gambia’s LGBT community will improve under the new president.

The winner of the election, John Barrow, is the president-elect  and is required  by the Gambian constitution to be sworn in within 60 days of the election, according to the Washington Blade. Hopefully life for all Gambians, and particularly LGBT individuals will improve once that happens.

Somehow I was contacted by the good guys at Scruff (one of those location-based mobile phone apps that gay men use to connect with each other) to present some "Scrufftistics" about a non-scientific poll they conducted from October 28-31, 2016 about the 2016 election with nearly 13,000 respondents. It shows that among "GBTQ" (gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) men that 79% would vote for Hillary Clinton while only 11% would vote for Donald Trump. It should be interesting to see what exit polls of the electorate say about the LGBTQ vote and how (and whether) there will be a difference between these polls (I expect there will be).

There's a now-famous map from 538.com starkly depicting the gender gap between the 2016 presidential candidates. If only men voted the electoral map would look like this:

However, the Scruff data shows that if only gay men voted the map would look like this:

Although the Scruff data also indicates that in 5 states Trump would get more than 20% of the GBTQ vote Louisiana (28.32%), Wyoming (27.78%), North Dakota (23.08%), Alabama (20.48%)
and Delaware (20%).

Again, note that this is a non-scientific poll. There's no guarantee the respondents actually have any correlation with the broader population of GBTQ men in the United States (for example, 95% of respondents said they were registered to vote). Scruff asked age information (over 55% were between 35-54), income information (over 30% claimed over $100k annual salary) and religious affiliation (over 50% said they were not religious) but did not ask about race/ethnicity, which in my opinion was a lost opportunity.

Overall, I found the scruff survey contained an interesting snapshot of the LGBTQ community. I hope to see more information like this in the future.

The worst mass shooting in U.S. history occurred late Saturday night at an LGBT nightclub called Pulse in Orlando, Florida. Omar Mateen, 29, has been identified as the person armed with an AR-15 and a handgun who killed 50 people and wounded 53 others.

President Barack Obama delivered a live address to the nation on the tragedy:

This is an especially heartbreaking day for all our friends -- our fellow Americans -- who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live. The place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub -- it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.  So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American -- regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation -- is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us Americans. Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.

A very sad day indeed!