In which I reveal my inner 80-year-old spinster librarian

I am going to meander a bit here, in the hopes that I eventually arrive at the point I am trying to make. Bear with me.

My parents are visiting this week, and my mother is reading "Julie and Julia." The prevailing opinion from her thus far is that she would be enjoying it more were it not for all the bad language. For my part, I tend not to get exercised about profanity in writing, so long as it seems to be in service to the book as a whole and not merely for prurient thrills or because the writer is too witless to avoid them. After all, writers have been writing with swear words for a long time. I can understand why Mom doesn't like them, but it's nothing I would object to myself.

I mention this to prove my "not generally prudish" bona fides.

I know nothing about the American Music Awards. I don't know where they fall on the scale of meaningless awards, award shows, etc. when compared with, say, the MTV Video Music Awards. I don't watch either, and don't care about who wins or performs, etc. (I do like to read when others make fun of what they wear, on the other hand.) Likewise, I haven't had an opinion about American Idol since halfway through the first season, when Tamyra Gray was booted off and it was made clear to me that talent had little to do with winning.

I mention this to concede that I was not part of the target audience for last night's AMA performance by Adam Lambert. (Lambert, for those of you who are lucky enough not to know, was a finalist on Idol last season [I think], was apparently quite popular, and has subsequently revealed that he is gay, to the surprise of precisely nobody.)

So, with all of that out of the way, let me now move to my main point, which is what the holy hell, Adam Lambert? It seems that last night, on prime time network television, Lambert decided to perform during the AMAs by, among other things, simulating the receipt of oral sex, making out with a band member, and flipping the crowd the bird. If you're interested in pictures, feel free to click here. (They give me agita.)

Here's the deal, Adam. I know there are a lot of factors are play. I know that your heterosexual counterparts typically behave like prostitutes (and their clients) while performing at such events, and so it seems unfair that you shouldn't do likewise in a manner more true to your sexual orientation. Life, she is unfair sometimes. I also understand that you may not be inclined to follow the path of Clay Aiken, another gay Idol also-ran who decided to pursue fatherhood and a stint on Broadway. (For the record, the Better Half and I saw him in "Spamalot," where he was both better than we would have expected and a good sport.) Vive la difference! And finally, I realize that, as a famous person, your only genuine concern is staying famous, not actually doing The Right Thing. I am not so naive as to presume otherwise.

But, as a gay man in his mid-thirties who suddenly feels like taking some nerve tonic and lying down, can I merely point out that it doesn't really help the cause of gay equality to go on national television (during prime time!) and act out one of James Dobson's most florid fever dreams? Is your talent so thin that you have to rely on such empty showbiz chicanery to entertain? I suspect you aren't motivated by such banal concerns as trying to secure marriage rights for yourself, but so long as these things are put to a vote maybe we should avoid carrying on so flagrantly/publicly?

Also, those spikes on your shoulder could put someone's eye out.


  1. Bravo Dan! It is fools like him that cost us dearly in the long run.

  2. Do you live under a rock? The "gay" pride parades that I have been forced to experience (by walking on the street) in New York (and other places) make AL's performance look like an interview with Tom Brokaw and those take place during daylight hours! Come on, you can't have all of these arguements go your way: "We want to marry"/"We don't want gay people to act like idiots during primetime"/"We want the Catholic Church to not be able to be an NGO and get a tax break". Stop complaining! My company forces diversity so that gay people are first to get hired (and women, and other diverse folks), and I am all for it by the way (and I voted NO on One), but Pleeaassee...stop!


  3. Oh, "Dart." You voted NO on One, huh? I guess that's meant to reassure me that you're just totally down with the "gays," and to distract us from your utterly laughable comment?

    It must have been very difficult for you when you were force-marched down 5th Avenue to watch the gay pride parade in New York. How trying you must find it to constantly be trying to walk in various cities, only to be forced to endure gay pride parade after gay pride parade. How profoundly unlucky you must be, to have parades always impeding your only available route to your destination. (Maybe try the subway next time?) Most people who don't wish to attend the parades simply stay home. But not poor you, "forced to experience" the parades.

    I also totally believe, without question, that your company preferentially hires gays. (I also find it charming that you consider women "diverse," presumably because your company is "forced" to hire them. What a terribly put-upon man you are.) Those mandatory gay hiring laws must be terribly effective, since they don't even exist and they're already working. I also totally believe that you are "all for it by the way." After all, you voted NO on One!

    Also, wanting to marry and not wanting our fellows to behave like idiots on primetime are not contradictory. Your line about the Catholic church is phrased in such a way as to make me... perplexed as to your point.

  4. Dart, I am so sad you were "forced" to watch those terrible homosexuals as they marched. I bet you did not sleep for weeks. I cannot imagine how you must feel being forced to work with those gays that were forced into your workplace. I'll bet they were the same ones marching and causing you to go almost choke and go blind from watching their antics. Do they act that way when they show up for work? I feel so bad you had to endure their parade... how sad.

  5. I think you both missed my point, I thought the parades were fine (I could care less if folks had sex in the street with one another)- it's you two that were upset with Adam! All I was saying is that what I have seen during daylight is worse than that what you saw in the evening. Also, two more points: 1) No, the gay people I work with don't wear leather at work (and again, I'm all for diversity - and it's my company that says women are members of whatever they call their diversity program - not me). 2) My church comment was in response to something you wrote a few weeks ago when you were complaining about the Catholic church using money for the Yes on One issue. You mentioned that they should not be benefitting from the tax break that NGO's get based on our tax code that no doubt your church benefits from (again - I see so many areas where you want to eat your cake and eat it too in this blog, it baffles me...but I DO like to read it)!



  6. Hmmmm. While I certainly saw plenty of outlandishly-dressed people in the gay pride parades in New York, I seem to have missed all the public sex. Ditto the parades in Boston or Kansas City.

    Also, there is a vast difference between a parade, even a big one, and a prime time television performance on a major network. I would, of course, prefer that gay folk try to avoid acting the fool across the board, but I'm going to get more irritated when there are more eyeballs directed at the foolishness in question.

    Re: the Catholic church, I am perfectly happy that they enjoy tax exempt status so long as they do not have their cake and eat it, too. If they wish to raise money for good works, then there is really no problem to consider. If they wish to raise money for a flagrantly political goal, which bears directly on the civil rights of a minority group, then I think it calls into question whether their tax exemption is merited. If my church were to engage in similar behavior, I would expect it to answer for itself in a similar manner.

  7. I didn't see any public sex either (but, then again - there is always a chance in P-Town), thanks for your post (a very good read indeed)...


  8. Dart.... I am a native Bostonian and having summered many many many years in P-Town the only thing close to public sex I observed were two dogs on the Public Pier. (I am not certain if that counts) They were one male and one female. I also had the pleasure of having Judy Garland tell me to go fuck myself. Those were the days, sigh.