-
Column: The changing landscape of the LGBT family
By David Webb The Rare Reporter What a difference a few decades and the evolution of new generations can make in society, particularly when it comes to the development of a new community. When I first moved to Dallas in the summer of 1969 — just a few months short of my 21st birthday — I found a community of people that heretofore I had only read about in literature. It was by accident that I landed in Oak Lawn because I just as easily could have rented my first apartment in any other area of the city. As I started navigating the neighborhood, going to the grocery store and going about the other mundane aspects of my life, I began noticing some very interesting people. It wasn’t long before I realized that I had stumbled upon something new and exciting. The LGBT community as we know it today was in its infancy. There were a few gay men’s bars, at least one lesbian hangout, some drag shows, cliques of gay people working at downtown department stores and hippy festivals in Lee Park where LGBT people celebrated openly with young, liberal straight people. In those days, I didn’t see a lot of same-sex couples living together. I occasionally became aware of older same-sex couples who had lived together for long times in homes, but for the most part I only met other single people like myself living in apartments. There were a lot of people living together as roommates, but from what I could tell there were few commitments in these arrangements. It was the days of indiscriminate sexual activity that was being practiced by gay and straight people alike. I did quickly find a place for myself in the community, and I became a part of a family of gay and straight people who socialized together. There were a couple of married straight people in the group, a divorced woman with a child, several gay and straight men and other people who drifted in and out of the network over the years.
This was a time when people realizing they were gay often chose not to reveal it to their birth families. Many people who felt isolated developed relationships with groups of people who gave them the support they needed to recognize and accept who and what they were. Many other groups of people that I encountered seemed to consist primarily of families of gay men or lesbians. It seemed to me that lesbians tended to be more likely to couple than gay men at that time. I was unaware of any same-sex couples raising children in the early 1970s. That early model of friends-as-family was one that served me well, and for some reason I’ve never much wanted to become involved in a committed relationship with a partner. Despite a couple of half-hearted tries over the years, that still holds true for me today. But it has changed drastically for many other people since the launch of the gay rights movement with the Stonewall Rebellion in New York City in 1969.
Legal challenges to state laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals began in the early 1970s and the fight for marriage equality has progressed to the point that same-sex marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia in the country now. Information gleaned in part from the 2000 U.S. Census and published by the Williams Institute in “Census Snapshot” in December 2007, reveals that an estimated 8.8 million LGBT lived in the U.S. in 2005. In 2005, there were 776,943 same-sex couples in the U.S., compared to 594,391 in 2000, according to the report. The Census information makes it clear that LGBT people live in every county in the U.S., whereas in the early years openly gay people seemed to be mostly a big-city phenomenon. Of these same-sex couples living in the U.S., 20 percent were raising children under the age of 18, and an estimated 270,313 of the U.S.’s children were living in same-sex-couple households, according to the report. An estimated 65,000 of the U.S.’s adopted children reportedly lived with a lesbian or gay parent. Clearly in the 40-plus years since the start of the gay rights movement, all of the characteristics of LGBT life have changed dramatically. Young people are often quicker to acknowledge and accept their sexual orientation, and there is a whole array of options that were unavailable to previous generations of LGBT people. When young LGBT people think about their lives and relationships today, it’s probably in terms of dating, finding the right person, living together, getting married and even raising children. If anyone had told me 40 years ago that I would see such developments in my lifetime, I would have thought they were crazy. But that’s how it is today, and it makes me wonder what sort of decisions I might have made about my life if so much had been available to me when I was young. David Webb is a veteran journalist who has covered LGBT issues for the mainstream and alternative media for three decades. E-mail him at davidwaynewebb@yahoo.com.]]> -
Column: The changing landscape of the LGBT family
By David Webb The Rare Reporter What a difference a few decades and the evolution of new generations can make in society, particularly when it comes to the development of a new community. When I first moved to Dallas in the summer of 1969 — just a few months short of my 21st birthday — I found a community of people that heretofore I had only read about in literature. It was by accident that I landed in Oak Lawn because I just as easily could have rented my first apartment in any other area of the city. As I started navigating the neighborhood, going to the grocery store and going about the other mundane aspects of my life, I began noticing some very interesting people. It wasn’t long before I realized that I had stumbled upon something new and exciting. The LGBT community as we know it today was in its infancy. There were a few gay men’s bars, at least one lesbian hangout, some drag shows, cliques of gay people working at downtown department stores and hippy festivals in Lee Park where LGBT people celebrated openly with young, liberal straight people. In those days, I didn’t see a lot of same-sex couples living together. I occasionally became aware of older same-sex couples who had lived together for long times in homes, but for the most part I only met other single people like myself living in apartments. There were a lot of people living together as roommates, but from what I could tell there were few commitments in these arrangements. It was the days of indiscriminate sexual activity that was being practiced by gay and straight people alike. I did quickly find a place for myself in the community, and I became a part of a family of gay and straight people who socialized together. There were a couple of married straight people in the group, a divorced woman with a child, several gay and straight men and other people who drifted in and out of the network over the years.
This was a time when people realizing they were gay often chose not to reveal it to their birth families. Many people who felt isolated developed relationships with groups of people who gave them the support they needed to recognize and accept who and what they were. Many other groups of people that I encountered seemed to consist primarily of families of gay men or lesbians. It seemed to me that lesbians tended to be more likely to couple than gay men at that time. I was unaware of any same-sex couples raising children in the early 1970s. That early model of friends-as-family was one that served me well, and for some reason I’ve never much wanted to become involved in a committed relationship with a partner. Despite a couple of half-hearted tries over the years, that still holds true for me today. But it has changed drastically for many other people since the launch of the gay rights movement with the Stonewall Rebellion in New York City in 1969.
Legal challenges to state laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals began in the early 1970s and the fight for marriage equality has progressed to the point that same-sex marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia in the country now. Information gleaned in part from the 2000 U.S. Census and published by the Williams Institute in “Census Snapshot” in December 2007, reveals that an estimated 8.8 million LGBT lived in the U.S. in 2005. In 2005, there were 776,943 same-sex couples in the U.S., compared to 594,391 in 2000, according to the report. The Census information makes it clear that LGBT people live in every county in the U.S., whereas in the early years openly gay people seemed to be mostly a big-city phenomenon. Of these same-sex couples living in the U.S., 20 percent were raising children under the age of 18, and an estimated 270,313 of the U.S.’s children were living in same-sex-couple households, according to the report. An estimated 65,000 of the U.S.’s adopted children reportedly lived with a lesbian or gay parent. Clearly in the 40-plus years since the start of the gay rights movement, all of the characteristics of LGBT life have changed dramatically. Young people are often quicker to acknowledge and accept their sexual orientation, and there is a whole array of options that were unavailable to previous generations of LGBT people. When young LGBT people think about their lives and relationships today, it’s probably in terms of dating, finding the right person, living together, getting married and even raising children. If anyone had told me 40 years ago that I would see such developments in my lifetime, I would have thought they were crazy. But that’s how it is today, and it makes me wonder what sort of decisions I might have made about my life if so much had been available to me when I was young. David Webb is a veteran journalist who has covered LGBT issues for the mainstream and alternative media for three decades. E-mail him at davidwaynewebb@yahoo.com.]]> -
U.N. resolution underscores dangers for LGBT people around the globe
By David Webb – The Rare Reporter The passage of a resolution by the United Nations Human Rights Council last month declaring that LGBT people around the world should be afforded equal protections with all other human beings left me overjoyed, yet still full of consternation. The measure’s passage represented a great victory for human rights advocates who pressed for it, but the very need for such an action underscored how dangerous it is to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender in many parts of the world, including the United States of America. Homosexuality remains illegal in 76 of the globe’s countries, and it is punishable by death in five of them. In the United States, where the nation’s sodomy laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, discrimination and violence against LGBT people continues to run rampant. An analysis of 14 years of FBI hate crime data by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project in late 2010 revealed that LGBT people are more than twice as likely to be violently attacked as Jews and blacks, more than four times as likely as Muslims and 14 times as likely as Latinos. In a press release by the U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the U.N. resolution a “historic moment to highlight the human rights abuses and violations that LGBT people face around the world based solely on whom they are and whom they love.” She noted that torture, rape, criminal proceedings and killings are sanctioned all over the world by religions that condemn anyone who does not adhere to traditional heterosexual norms regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. The controversial resolution, which was proposed by South Africa, passed narrowly on a vote of 23 to 19. Although the measure was supported by the U.S. and other Western countries, it was opposed by African and Arab countries where the prosecution and persecution of LGBT individuals is the most severe. Three countries, including China, abstained from voting. Reaction to the U.N. resolution from opponents of LGBT rights was telling. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative to the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, denounced it as a maneuver in an international agenda to restrict the freedom of churches. Tomasi claimed the church opposes violence against homosexual behavior and punishment based on a person’s “feelings and thoughts,” but he condemned the measure as detrimental to society and likened laws against homosexuality to prohibitions against incest, pedophilia and rape. In Ghana, the Rev. Joseph Bosoma of the Sunyani Central Ebenezer Presbyterian Church called on President John Evans Atta Mills to crack down on homosexuality in the country, warning that society was on the verge of a punishment similar to what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah in Biblical times. The president assured the pastor that the government would take action to check homosexual activity. Similarly, Alex McFarland of the American Family Association, the group that is sponsoring Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s The Response Prayer Rally in Houston on Aug. 6, declared recently that the world is now in The Latter Days, in response to the passage of marriage equality in New York. He argued that LGBT rights are not the equivalent of human rights. Soulforce, an LGBT group that monitors conservative religious groups, noted that another host of Perry’s rally, Lou Engle, the leader of The Call, is one of three evangelical leaders in the U.S. who supported the Kill the Gays bill in Uganda. For three decades the greatest impediment to the LGBT rights movement has been Christian Rights groups and its leaders who have seized on the concept of a “homosexual agenda” bent on destroying American culture and society. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, declared the fight against LGBT rights as a “second civil war.” Some of these Christian Rights groups have earned the distinction of being identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center because they have resorted to crude name-calling and spreading false information about LGBT people in an effort to draw support to their cause. Like the Ku Klux Klan that vilified all minorities in its terroristic oppression of people and also operated under the guise of Christianity, today’s militant Christian Rights groups target LGBT people for scapegoating. LGBT people comprise the last minority group left that it is politically correct in some quarters to attack, and Christian Rights groups and politicians like Gov. Perry are making the most of it. The beginning of this summer marked the 16th anniversary of the Southern Baptist Convention’s apology to black people for its abominable treatment of that race over the years, and some gay activists, such as Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out, petitioned the church group to issue a similar apology to LGBT people. That, of course, did not happen, but one day perhaps it will. Until groups like the Southern Baptist Convention, which urges followers to “go the extra mile when witnessing to gay people” recognizes LGBT people as equal, freedom will continue to be a worldwide challenge. The U.N. resolution was a milestone in that journey to equality, but the road ahead for LGBT people will continue to be a long and difficult one. The U.S., which admittedly is far behind some countries, will likely see success long before LGBT people in some parts of the world feel free. David Webb is a veteran journalist who has covered LGBT issues for the mainstream and alternative media for three decades. E-mail him at davidwaynewebb@yahoo.com.]]>
-
Interview: David Webb – The Rare Reporter
When I first launched lgbtSr.com I started looking around for contributors. The intention was to have a variety of voices and writers on the site. I was looking at different news items out there in the lgbt Intersphere (or blogiverse or webaxy or whatever you want to call it) and I saw some articles from a writer named David Webb (The Rare Reporter, as you’ll see). I reached out to David, we spoke on the phone that same day, and he’s been contributing since then. He’s a veteran reporter and I thought an interview would be a good way to get to know him better. I think you’ll agree. David’s in Texas, by the way. I read his column in a Florida paper, called him from New York City, and here we are. Why ‘The Rare Reporter’? Where did that come from? DW: About 10 years ago when I was a staff writer for the Dallas Voice a public relations representative for Razzle Dazzle, an LGBT charitable event, was particularly pleased about a story I did announcing the upcoming event. The former television reporter called me and said that she viewed me as a rare reporter. It was unusual for me to get such a compliment because I often wrote about controversial issues that displeased a lot of people in the community. The publisher of the Dallas Voice and my colleagues thought it was humorous because I had been called so many unfavorable things in the past and they nicknamed me The Rare Reporter. When I started writing a column I struggled for a long time to create a name for it. Suddenly it occurred to me my moniker was The Rare Reporter, and so I made it official. I first noticed your writing at South Florida Gay News and I know you’ve been reporting in the LGBT media for a long time. How did you get started? DW: I worked in the mainstream media after my graduation from the University of Texas with a degree in journalism. I covered just about every beat imaginable for several years. In 1981 when I first heard about the “gay cancer” afflicting men in San Francisco I became intrigued and started reading everything I could find on the subject. When it became obvious that a horrible epidemic was spreading through the country and that cases had been found in Texas, I started seeking out patients, interviewing them and writing about AIDS. The epidemic sparked unprecedented activism by gay men and lesbians, and I started writing about that as well. I saw a great need for information because most mainstream newspapers in Texas shied away from the subject at first. Even alternative publications in Texas preferred to limit coverage of gay issues to the occasional small report. I remember having some pretty horrific arguments with an editor about her belief that I was devoting too much of my time to gay issues. Today, she acknowledges that she was wrong, and that I was correct that the issue was of huge importance to both gay and straight people. What’s changed in the media landscape over the last couple of decades, with the advent of digital media and the seeming death of print? DW: Print publications no longer can compete effectively in the area of breaking news. The public wants to know what is happening immediately and they turn to television and the Internet to satisfy that curiosity. Younger people simply don’t like to sit down with a newspaper. As a result subscriptions are down and so is advertising revenue. That has forced newspapers to drastically cut editorial staffs. There is less investigative reporting and a lot of news in smaller areas simply goes unreported because newspapers have become more oriented toward pleasing the community and not stirring up controversy. Newspapers are now struggling to present coverage of breaking news on the Internet as quickly as it happens, much like you see with television reporting. It is requiring print publication editors and reporters to become adept at multi-media skills to accomplish that goal. Newspapers are also struggling to find ways to generate income from their Web sites through subscriptions and advertising revenue. You live in Texas. Is there a difference, and do you have a preference, for local reporting versus what you might write for, say,lgbtSr.com? DW: Reporting for an LGBT audience — even in a large metropolitan area — is much like writing for a small town newspaper. The readers are far more engaged with the staff of LGBT newspapers than the readers of mainstream publications. It is often difficult to convince these readers that the reporting of news that portrays certain LGBT people and groups in an unfavorable light is as important as good news. There is less interaction with readers when I write for national publications. I like and am committed to both types of coverage so I guess an even mix of both best suits me. Is there any advice you could offer someone new in the journalism game, regardless of their age? DW: I think reporters and editors should be multi-skilled. Today, it is necessary to be able to shoot videos, take pictures, write, edit and stay abreast of all technological developments in media. Beyond that, I think journalists should learn a little bit about all media beats, such as crime, politics, sports, entertainment, business, etc., before deciding to specialize in any one area of coverage. The business is getting really competitive so a journalist who can do it all is obviously more valuable than one who has limited abilities. Is there any one particular story you’ve covered or incident in your reporting career that stands out? DW: I wrote an investigative story a few years ago about the large number of unsolved murders of gay men in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. That story sort of haunted me because it appeared clear that all of these men were killed by someone whom they had met for an anonymous sexual encounter. It is sort of spooky to know there is a killer or several killers out there somewhere who lured gay men to their deaths and are likely still free to kill again. This site is primarily aimed for those of us over 50. What’s the best thing about living long enough to be in that category? DW: After having watched countless friends die during the AIDS epidemic, I’m just grateful to be alive today. I feel fortunate to be able to pursue the work I love and my other interests, such as travel, my friends, my family, my pets, nature, the arts and whatever else attracts my attention. I have a much greater appreciation for life today than I did 30 years ago.]]>
-
Column: AIDS – 30 years into a 'treatable disease'
By David Webb – The Rare Reporter Three decades into the HIV/AIDS epidemic the future has never looked as promising for some who are infected with the virus and as bleak for others who will likely find themselves on the more unfortunate side of the spectrum of circumstances in the next decade. For older LGBT people, the threat of contracting a new HIV infection could not be more frightening in terms of the dire consequences related to health and aging and the cost and availability of medical care. Treatments for HIV infections have radically evolved since the early days when the side effects of medications such as AZT prolonged the lives of some HIV-infected individuals but often made them so sick they didn’t really care whether they lived or died. I witnessed several people choosing not to take the medications in earlier years because of how ill the side effects such as nausea and pain made them. Now, HIV-infected people often appear to be living life as fully, if not more fully, than many HIV-negative people, thanks to the development of anti-retroviral drugs in the 1990s. Although their healthy appearances belie the massive, complicated regimens of multiple, often-changing medications to sustain them, there is no doubt HIV-infected people are living longer and feeling better. Ongoing research by scientists around the world gives hope to the possibility there will someday be a vaccine to protect against HIV and possibly even eradicate it after infection. Just recently, it was reported that a man suffering from both leukemia and HIV who received a bone marrow stem cell transplant in Germany in 2007 is now HIV-negative. His bone marrow transplant reportedly came from a donor who was immune to HIV, an immunity that some scientists believe exists in about 1 percent of the Caucasian population. The downside of all this is the enormous cost of HIV treatments when they eventually become available to the public. The bone marrow transplant treatment is incredibly painful, dangerous and expensive so its widespread use is unlikely.
Billions are already being spent on the delivery of anti-HIV drug cocktails, and those costs are expected to spiral in the next decade to astronomical amounts. At the same time, all of the major countries in the world are struggling to remain solvent during the worst financial crisis of more than a half-century. Regardless of what medical treatments become available, the majority of people may not be able to afford them. Millions of people in the U.S. are unemployed and uninsured for health problems they face. The states and the federal government have long provided health care and other resources for HIV/AIDS patients, but crashing budgets are already placing limits on those programs. And it’s only going to get worse as governments struggle to make ends meet. Insurance premiums are rising so quickly in tandem with the rising cost of health care that many companies are struggling to provide benefits for employees. A decade ago, it was common for companies to pay for 100 percent of employees’ health insurance policies, but now it is more common for employers to require 20 percent payments of premiums by employees. In addition to government cuts, the amounts of money HIV service organizations have been able to raise from the charitable public is almost certainly going to decrease as well. People just don’t have as much income to share with less fortunate people. For older Americans looking to retire and anticipating the end of their job-afforded health insurance, the availability of medical care through the federal Medicare program is going to be more problematic, as it will be for younger people contracting new HIV infections. And even if an older American has abundant financial resources to access whatever medical care is available, the truth is that the drug cocktails that have prolonged the lives of younger people just don’t work as well for anyone over 50, according to scientific studies. It’s hard to believe that the 30th anniversary of the HIV epidemic observed this month was accompanied by a United Nations report that 30 million people have died from the disease, and that 7,000 new infections occur globally every day. What’s more, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study was released earlier in the month reporting that LGBT students are more likely than heterosexual classmates to engage in risky behavior like alcohol and drug use, which presumably could lead to unprotected sexual activity. In the United States, it is estimated that 40,000 new infections occur every year, many times to people who are unaware they have been infected. So three decades into the HIV epidemic, we find ourselves pretty much where we were in the beginning back in 1981 when we realized it was likely a blood-borne, sexually-transmitted disease in most cases. No matter how rich someone is or how old they are, an HIV infection is unaffordable in every way imaginable. Prevention of an infection is still the best answer for everyone.]]>