Here's a random thought which I am certain will draw a fair amount of disgusted -- if uninformed -- reaction.  It's very late and I haven't thought it through entirely, but I had to get it out of my brain.

What do John Geoghan, Maurice Blackwell, Edward Olszewski, Rodney Willis Rogers, Gary Timmons, Robert Melancon, and Don McCary have in common?  All were convicted of child molestation while in a position of trust.  All victimized boys.  And none was ever accused (much less convicted if laws were applicable) of being homosexual.  So why are there still bipartisan battle cries rallying against sanctions supporting equality for gays and lesbians?  As I was watching "The Murder of Emmett Till" tonight on PBS, I was struck by the narrator's comment that Emmett's murder awakened a community upon which war had been declared.  Till's murder is considered the watershed moment that sparked the civil rights movement; ten days after the murder, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus and unwittingly launched the Montgomery bus boycott. 

After Matthew Shepard was found beaten to a bloody pulp and tied to a Wyoming fence (he succumbed to the injuries days later), it seemed as if the gay and lesbian communities had awoken from a slumber not interrupted since Colorado's Amendment Two was passed in 1993.  They seemed to identify with the killing in much the same way African Americans understood the murder of Emmett Till.  But the energy was short-lived and, in November of 2004, Shepard's convicted killers sought to clear their reputations by going on record to say that Shepard was killed for drug money and not because he was gay. 

I'm struggling to make sense of the pervading notion that it's still okay to consider gays and lesbians less than equal human beings.  True, there were never water fountains and restrooms designated "Homosexuals Only" or restaurants that will serve gays and lesbians from the kitchen door leading to the alley; but why is it okay for a child-molesting priest to advocate excommunication of a gay parishioner?

This was a question posed on the local craigslist, under the heading "Women Seeking Women":

the word "dyke"

Reply to: anon-60475384@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-02-19, 5:08PM MST

I am curious about how other lesbians feel about "dyke", it seems to elicit strong reactions, even when used amongst ourselves. Discuss.

One response:

RE: the word

Reply to: anon-60561595@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-02-20, 1:34PM MST

I have no feeling towards the use of the word among friends. I think that society uses it as a way to try and put us in our place. It is just a word. I do not feel it is any different than the word Bitch used among women, or Fag used for gay men. Why should we allow a word to hurt us, or belittle our loves? I also think that society should research their slang words, when using them to hurt others, before shouting them at people. The term Dyke when used correctly is: A man made water containment system, a barier in which water is held. This proves that society is ignorant about what they are calling us. I hate to bring it up but a friend told me once that the African American community now uses the "N" word among each other to show society just how a word has no effect. Plus if you look that word up it also has a different meaning than what "white" people using would think: An uneducated person. It has nothing to do with race or ethnic background. I say that we should take the word (dyke)and use it as much as we can in an effort to reclaim our meaning for it.

My response:

Re: the word

Reply to: anon-60669890@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-02-21, 10:59AM MST

Most dictionaries will also include a definition denoting "dyke" as vulgar slang, and I have yet to see evidence that reclaiming a negative connotation results in empowerment.

Let's expand the argument to include elements of the recent Ward Churchill controversy: all persons who are upper middle class, high-wage earners should henceforth refer to themselves as "little Eichmanns," reclaiming the honor and integrity of the man who was a loyal and patriotic supporter of Adolph Hitler and Aryan supremacy -- let's just forget that he was an architect of genocide.

While we're at it, let all Jews refer to themselves as "kikes"; Mexicans as "wetbacks"; Blacks as "niggers"; Native Americans as "redskins"; Italians as "dagos"; Arabs as "towelheads"; Asians as "chinks" and "Japs"; differently-ableds as "crips"; police as "pigs"; and Whites as "crackers."

Yes, let's invigorate this community building exercise of enlightened self-identification with words that we want to reclaim... all while ignoring the reality that NO negative word exists for "heterosexual."

The follow-up commentary and my response:

STATEMENT: "I don't agree with that at all. While 'dyke' has had negative connotations for the general public since its inception in the 20s, it has typically been a positive term within the queer community. When referred to lesbians, it implies a masculine, or more butch woman. As the butch/femme culture began to emerge in America in the 20s and 30s, femmes would head to the bar hoping to find themselves a 'dyke.'"

RESPONSE: "Femmes" sought "dykes" in an effort to complete their mental picture of the equivalent of normalcy; in other words, they sought to maintain the surface appearance of a female/male partnership. Any interpretation of "dyke" as a positive label within this context simply confirms aquiescence to society's overtones.

STATEMENT: "Do you have a problem with the word 'butch,' too? Or 'bulldagger'? Language is created to name difference. While we may not have many words for heteros, claiming words such as dyke, butch, femme, whatever isn't singly about reappropriating negative words (especially since their origin is often ambiguous), but it is also about creating language for the diversity within our community. If we are all 'lesbians,' people get lost through the cracks of rigid definitions."

RESPONSE: Yes. To say that the terms "butch," "dyke," "femme," "fag" and "homo" are means of reflecting diversity is to admit ignorance that they are employed as weapons; why else do you suppose there are no derogatory terms for "heterosexual"? The overarching point of my original response is that anyone not heterosexual or White is considered abnormal -- and blithely employing the subject terms even amongst ourselves serves only to further subdivide an already fractured community that wouldn't know cohesiveness if it bit them in the ass.

And the apparent conclusion can be found at this link.