Coming Out Stories

Video documentary of local reaction to the Court ruling and subsequent marriage ceremonies in Santa Barbara last spring. Includes interviews with Percy and Ross, the newly married couple in the Indy photo atop this article.

"Let Santa Barbara Ring, Marriage for All" an episode of Off-Leash Public Affairs.

Video link, description, and cable TV-17 schedule:

http://www.offleashpublicaffairs.net/200...

Hmm...if they're "out", why do they not have their full names published?

Answer to billclausen; Good question. Perhaps for the same reason that most posts on blogs are anonymous. People seem genuinely afraid of people and being stalked and getting killed.

What a sad statement on modern culture in America, when our heroes are those who openly proclaim their sexual proclivities. By the way "homophobe" is an interesting misnomer for someone who believes homosexuality is immoral, decadent, anti-family and unnatural. Doesn't homophobe mean one is afraid of homosexuals? I've never understood that one. I doubt those who are disgusted by the behaviour, and don't wish their children to be taught that it is "normal" are actually afraid of those who participate in it. My feelings on the subject? Do what you want just don't shove it everyone's face. It's the militant agenda that bothers me, not the behaviour.

How about BIGOT ??
Is that a better and more accurate label than Homophobe?

50 years ago the bigoted and prejudicial rhetoric was the same about many racial and ethnic groups. Now, many people are still in denial about their bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation.

AShaw - otra vez? Another post that's short on independent thought and contemplation?

I consider it rather courageous for someone to come out and thereby risk verbal and physical abuse, alienation from their family and threats of death from all the ignorant jackasses out there.

I bet you don't have many problems with heterosexuality being shoved in your face. You and your double standards...

"Answer to billclausen; Good question. Perhaps for the same reason that most posts on blogs are anonymous. People seem genuinely afraid of people and being stalked and getting killed." -Johnathan Smith-

"I consider it rather courageous for someone to come out and thereby risk verbal and physical abuse, alienation from their family and threats of death from all the ignorant jackasses out there." -bigyoonit-

Per the first post I quote: I guess Johnathan Smith, David Pritchett and myself are marked men. Oh well, I'd rather run the risk of someone coming after me or worse yet, someone anonymously making nasty comments about me on one of these blogs than hiding behind a moniker taking swipes at people from the safe having of a fake screen name.

What was that about double standards?

I will make a very politically incorrect post here, and of course will probably draw reactions from both sides.

There are two aspect to gay poltics, ("gay politics" is the term I'll use for lack of a better one) first, the demand not to be beaten up, killed, are treated differently than heterosexuals, in other words--the desire not to be gay-bashed. The second one is the "gay pride" approach, which I have never heard challenged by the political left. Isn't pride (national pride) what gets us into wars? And for the "gay christians", isn't pride spoken against in the Bible? (Episcopals and United Methodists and others take note) Shouldn't we ALL (every man-jack one of us) be humble?

Pride and standing up for one's rights are two different concepts/

bigyoon it is hilarious that you label my posts as "short on independent thought" when I am about the ONLY one on here that isn't following the crowd down the politically correct sheep trail of intimidation and "tolerance"... personally I think that takes more courage than "coming out of the closet" in this modern day culture...long live free speech brother, as long as you agree with what I say, right? I'm not asking anyone to love me, nor do I care. I care most that I am free to disagree with you or your behaviour and allowed to express it .. I'm doing it before disagreeing with liberals becomes illegal. It won't be long in my estimation, due to the hypocritical hatred against anyone that disagrees with you. Mostly though, I love pulling all of your chains....its such a joke.

"I consider it rather courageous for someone to come out and thereby risk verbal and physical abuse, alienation from their family and threats of death from all the ignorant jackasses out there." -bigyoonit-

It used to be a hero was one that was less concerned about themselves and more concerned about others. One who would or does sacrifice their very life for others, not one who risks his own life for his own sake..

Example? hmmm lets think of someone you might hate the most - an American soldier? A police officer? I'll go to the extreme and say Jesus Christ that should really piss you off.

Instead our heroes and those we worship are now are those who are completely selfis, self serving and concerned about more their own selfish welfare and lifestyle....

Ashaw, just a few of points in an attempt to keep it brief:

I agree with you on free speech. You're free to post your comment and I'm free to criticize it, and vice versa. I look forward to these exchanges with you but be smart and don't direct any of your attacks on any singular person.

My 'independent thought' comment is an assumption of you, that you watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh, love their ideas and recycle their vitriol into this community. I just believe that if anyone gave it enough time and thought, you would come to the conclusion as I did that being gay does not make you less deserving of rights afforded a heterosexual person; equality is a good thing.

You are the only one making the link that someone who is courageous is a hero. It's a required attribute of a hero, but being courageous doesn't make one a hero. Soldiers, police officers and even Jesus Christ - very courageous, but not my heroes. They're your heroes, fine. My hero is my mom. Have you even thought that coming out is not selfish? It may give courage to others to come out - not selfish.

Lastly - I can't believe you just defended bigotry.

Thank you for your thoughtful and rational reply bigyoon. I even appreciate your concessions. I am not defending bigotry, nor am I a bigot. I stated clearly above:

Do what you want just don't shove it everyone's face. It's the militant agenda that bothers me, not the behaviour.

Not only is it being shoved in our face, it is being rammed down our throat by the likes of Gavin Newsom, and laws are being enacted in the interest of ramming it down our throat..

To answer the double standard accusaton, I do not see militant activist heterosexuals doing the same all we are doing is defending our turf when pushed to the edge.

I am not defending bigotry or hate crimes. I am defending the freedom of expression of a bigot, as long as that expression does not involve criminal or unlawful activity.. I am defending the freedom to be a bigot and I am also defending the freedom to be what people have labeled a "homophobe". I am defending the rights of people to think what they wish of homosexuality. I am defending the right to be heterosexual and proud and not to have to "accept" tolerate or witness the behavior, if I do not wish to.. I am defending the right of traditional families to exist without harrassment and "homophobe bashing", without our time honored institutions being redefined. I am tired of the name calling and intimidation tactics used by gays (bigot, homophobe) to promote their agenda and indoctrination of children. Don't you think that homosexuals are equally bigoted against traditionalists and what they call "homophobes". If not you need to rethink. Just re-read the last line in the above article : "No great loss, actually, since who wants to be friends with homophobes?"

I see name calling as a childish attempt to intimidate free expression and it no longer bothers me and should no longer be effective on others either, or we will be slowly giving up our right to think what we think and feel the way we feel, and believe what we believe. I would be happy and proud to be called a bigot before I will be intimidated into losing my freedom of expression by legislation.

Those of you so concerned about losing your rights (i.e. patriot act) should feel the same way, whether you agree with my viewpoint or not. My viewpoints and beliefs were held long before Rush Limbaugh or Fox news ever existed by the way. I can't help it if others agree with me. Do you think those who believe this way can't think for themselves? What an insult.

If you really think about it - it is rather narrow minded and prejudicial to assume that all who believe as I do must be brainwashed by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh (even though these were commonly held beleives before the gay mafia came out of the closet long before Rush or cable or even TV).

Personally I can't stand the pompous ass and I don't even have cable TV. The only TV I watch is channel three (ABC) and I am at work during Rush's show. With all due respect, are there any more insulting presumptions you would like to make toward others who may agree with me and actually don't call Rush before forming an opinion or belief?

These stories are interesting and inspiring. It IS courageous to be out in one's daily life.

AShaw, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. In regards to the rights you say you want to defend:

I too believe people have the right to think what they want about homosexuality...or any subject at all!

Guess, what, you don't need to defend the right to be hetero and proud--you have it, it's intact, heterosexual marriages are sanctioned by not just church, but state too! Sanctioned, celebrated, granted with tax benefits, broadcast in papers, etc. etc. Be grateful for what you have.

You have the right not to accept or tolerate homosexuality. As individuals, all Americans have the right not to accept or tolerate anyone or any group. That's different, however, than what occurs in the public sphere. Intolerance is not something to be written into law.

No one has the "right," not to have to "witness the behavior if [you] do not wish to." I mean, there are lots of behaviors out in the world I'd rather not witness, but I just either a) don't look, or b) get over it because my beliefs and preferences and biases are not the rule of law. Get over it, we live in a pluralistic society and guess what, YOU'RE not in charge! Don't look.

Traditional families' right to exist are not being threatened. If you believe they are, please explain, with concrete examples, how this threat is occurring, from whom (and don't say the "homosexual mafia" unless you identify what THAT is), and what this threat's concrete effects are exactly.

I infer that you feel this threat has something to do with traditional families' "time honored institutions being redefined." I assume you mean efforts to extend the definition of marriage to include gays. How does that pose a threat to heterosexual marriage?

You say: "I am tired of the name calling and intimidation tactics used by gays (bigot, homophobe) to promote their agenda and indoctrination of children. Don't you think that homosexuals are equally bigoted against traditionalists and what they call "homophobes".
1) What indoctrination of children? Where and how does this occur?
2) "homosexuals" are no more a monolithic entity than are "heterosexuals." Some homosexuals may overuse terms like homophobe and bigot. Just like some heterosexuals appear to be inordinately concerned with homosexuals as the big threat to marriage without ever talking about how some heterosexuals themselves threaten "traditional marriage" in very concrete ways with adultery, lack of commitment, alcoholism, abusive behavior, and the like. These contributors to the 50% divorce rate for heterosexuals seem like the real threat that should be occupying time and energy of those concerned about "traditional families."

3) Get a hobby?

This IS my hobby :) Defending against those who don't seem to have hobbies of their own and have time to actively promote their political agendas which directly affect my family and children (gay agendas, gangs, bicultural agendas etc.. Trust me I would rather be doing something other than this but I am the only one apparently in this town with the nerve to speak up.I have three jobs and plenty to do. This happens to be convenient because I can do it while I work.

As far as your other questions there is a new article on this site (surprisingly enough) presenting the argument for prop 8. Took many of the words right out of my mouth:

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/oct...

"Trust me I would rather be doing something other than this but I am the only one apparently in this town with the nerve to speak up."

If you would rather do something else, you would be doing it. And, was there an election that I missed, where you were chosen as the Potentate, for Those w/o the Nerve to Speak Up?

"I have three jobs and plenty to do. This happens to be convenient because I can do it while I work."

And if you were working, you wouldn't be doing this. :)

AShaw, you sometimes provide an interesting viewpoint on an issue, yet your downfall seems to be that you go out of your way to prove that your viewpoint is valid, when you could just let it stand for itself. I suppose you could try and call it defending yourself, but if you were serious about having your opinion understood (and by that I mean 'understood', not necessarily agreed with), you would probably do better to ease off the vehement righteousness throttle. You might actually try understanding (that word again) other points of view, before assuming that everyone wants to convert you.

As it is, in America we have a certain freedom to be bigoted, should we so wish. And by that, I am not calling you a bigot, but trying to show that bigotry doesn't necessarily mean evil. For example, a Skinhead has the right to hate a black/jewish/whatever man--but that doesn't give him the right to assault that person. Unfortunately, the lines get blurry, when one considers "hate speech", or other, somewhat vague notions.

Also, like most people with strong opinions, who whine about Free Speech on internet forums all the time, you should realize that this is a publicly accessible forum for interaction, but it is privately owned and operated, and at some point I imagine, subject to "public decency" legislation, which would force the operators to enact certain censorships, whether they agree or not.

Bravo, Bravo !!!! To those who come out to themselves and to family. Formost to themselves first because if you can't accept yourself, how can anyone else accept you. As for the Transgenders and Transexuals, whether a M2F or F2M, you as a person don't take your gender and sexuality for granted like most who never question who and what they are; do. Non-TS/TG's never bask in their own sexuality and gender, never really savior what it is to be either Male or Female, it just a given. At the very least, the TG/TS is aware and focused in what makes them tick and who they are, both mind and body.
I had never took a look at who I was sexually until I met a TG (Transgender) who wanted to be a female so bad it was their every waking thought. I interacted with them so much that I noticed the differences in what I held as pase' compared to what He/She did; sexually. I began to understand that if what I saw in the mirror didn't match what my brain physically saw then I was NOT right and had to be fixed. Most of us see that as the brain is broken but a TG sees it as the body is wrong and must be fixed.
Before they can fix themselves, they must admit to themselves of who and what they are and then "Come-out" to the world.
I say again, "Bravo" for the courage to express ones self to the World and others.
Charles J. Rautio (Alexandria, Va.)

AShaw, I am sure your head will explode when you realize that someone who is not gay still can and does advocate for civil rights for gay people, including the retention of the existing right for civil marriage recognized by State of California.

You can say or write that I am gay as if it were an insult. Factually incorrect, but not an insult as you seem to want such a label to be.

As for who commenting about who here is a bigot, you seem to be an expert.

AShaw...you are not alone.
When the rights of two groups collide, consider who has the most to loose.
Homosexual groups will lose the right to use one word with Prop 8....marriage! No other tangible right will be lost. You can still be in committed unions, adopt children, etc.
Religious parents however, will lose the right to keep their children from being exposed to things that are in direct conflict with their religious convictions. They will lose the right to exercise their religion as it relates to teaching children correct principles. You know its true.
The only argument I hear over and over again from most of you is, you're hurting my feelings or what a bigot you are.

"Homosexual groups will lose the right to use one word with Prop 8....marriage! No other tangible right will be lost. You can still be in committed unions, adopt children, etc."

While this seems almost agreeable on the surface, I would present two points:

1) There are actually two types of 'marriages', the "before God" kind, and the "before government" kind. Religious groups may choose not to hold marriage ceremonies--or recognize same-sex couples as married--but that's an issue with their belief system. As far as the gov't goes, a state, or the Fed, could recognize a **legal** marriage, and calling it a "civil union", or whatever else, doesn't invalidate the appliance of the (again, legal) privileges of marriage.

2) If the argument is that "marriage" is only a word, then that cuts both ways: Why should those who think gay couples shouldn't fret about the word "marriage", be so upset about letting them use it?
_

"Religious parents however, will lose the right to keep their children from being exposed to things that are in direct conflict with their religious convictions. They will lose the right to exercise their religion as it relates to teaching children correct principles."

I don't think there IS such a thing, as a "right to keep their children from being exposed" to anything, whether it relates to a religious conflict or not. That being said, a religious person could still try to wall their children off from society, but short of home-schooling, not allowing TV, radio, or internet, and maybe caging the kids in the basement, I doubt their efforts will amount to much. Furthermore, "teaching children correct principles" also fails on two fronts: 1) We may only assume what is 'correct' to teach children, and 2) Whatever we decide is 'correct', we are not hampered in doing so--any influence of life in a modern society is not really being *taught* by the parents.

TANGENT: While I was writing this, it occurred to me that in certain "conservative", or "traditional" cultures, both men and women have NO CHOICE in whom they marry (arranged marriages). Perhaps, if one looks at the simple freedom accorded to most of us, to marry anyone we wish (talking hetero, for now), then we might consider the arranged marriage customs to be outdated, or even borderline barbaric. The free choice of a marriage partner is essentially the same freedom that same-sex couples are not only asking for, but in my opinion, rightly expecting to have. [Taking it to the extreme, imagine a world where there were arranged, same-sex marriages--would that be something only seen in sci-fi?]

Excellent points equus.

Note to AShaw--back on 10/12, you made a valid point about my wording sounding disingenuous when I wrote "they probably are [bigots and homophobes]."

Instead, I should have written, "maybe they are." I concede that in the context of my original post, I made that mistake.

However, I have since revised the entire opinion I was expressing. While it may not be an effective communication method, calling someone like you a bigot is not actually incorrect. Santabarbarian got it right back then and I got it wrong.

A bigot is defined in Webster's dictionary as " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Your voluminous posts generalizing about gays and decrying gay marriage provide ample evidence supporting the assessment that you are, in fact, a bigot.