



Last night, my mother called. It was the second time she had called yesterday. The first time was to ask about a recipe, and in the second, she called back to tell me about a procedure she had done with her eyes. Mama has macular degeneration, just like her father had. It had begun to deteriorate because of a blockage in a blood vessel, so they had to give her a shot in her eye. The good news is that the doctor said it was very successful, and she probably would only need one more injection.
After telling me about the procedure, she asked me what I would do on Christmas Day. I told her I would likely cook dinner, and that was about all I’d do. Then she asked, “ Do you have anyone to spend the day with?” I told her that no, I didn’t have anyone. I said that maybe I could spend some time with my downstairs neighbor, who she knows is also from Alabama, but I doubt I’d see anyone. Then came the glimmer of hope. She asked, “No, I was wondering if you had met a guy you could spend Christmas with?” Now there could be any number of reasons she asked this. She may just be worried about me being alone on Christmas. She could have only been curious or thought this might be the real reason I was not coming home for Christmas.
In the fifteen years since she found out I was gay, she has never said anything positive about being gay. It has always been a nasty, snarky side comment when she has mentioned my sexuality. The examples are too many to name. She asked this with no malice in her voice, just curiosity (and maybe a bit of hope that I would not be alone on Christmas). For some, this would not be a big deal. For me, it seems like a possible reason to hope that she is finally accepting my sexuality. I could be reading too much into this, but I know my mother very well. I know when she is lying. I know when she’s being manipulative. I know when she is being nosy in a malicious way. This comment did not seem like any of those things.
Only once before had she ever mentioned a possible man in my life, and that was my college roommate. She thought that we might have had something going on. We did not, and I told her so. I did try one night when we were drunk but was rebuffed, then after college, I came out to him, and I’ve never heard from him since. We were roommates for four years, and I haven’t heard from him in nearly twenty years. I haven’t tried to contact him, and he hasn’t tried to contact me again. It wasn’t awkward or anything when I told him, and I am terrible at keeping in touch with people. It’s easier now with Facebook, but Facebook wasn’t around or popular back then. Anyway, I am sidetracked.
I don’t know exactly what my mother meant when she asked me if “I’d met a guy I could spend Christmas with.” Once I said that I had not met anyone, she said she had to go, and we disconnected before I could say anything more. The thing I can’t stress enough is that she did not seem to be negative in any way when she asked about me meeting a guy. Maybe I shouldn’t see so much hope in this little question. Time will tell if she has had any kind of change of heart. I wish that I had a guy to spend Christmas with, cook for, cuddle up with on the couch, and watch a Christmas movie. Maybe someday that will happen. I find it increasingly doubtful, but I can continue to hope.
Maybe if I met someone and decided to spend Christmas with them instead of with my family, she would decide it was okay for me to bring him home to meet them. That’s probably really wishful thinking, but maybe she’s had an epiphany. Isn’t that what happens in all the Christmas movies? Scrooge had an epiphany about his miserly ways. George had an epiphany in It’s a Wonderful Life about the many lives he has touched. In every Lifetime or Hallmark Christmas movie, a woman decides that her life in the big city is too hectic, and she’s better off with a simpler life in rural Vermont with a guy she met two days ago . It’s a common theme at Christmastime. So why can’t I have a glimmer of hope that my mother has also had an epiphany about her homophobia?

“Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It’s beyond me.”
– Zora Neale Hurston
I think we all face some type of discrimination at points in our lives. Maybe it’s because of our race, gender, sexuality, or even our weight. I also know that it makes me angry when it has happened to me. Even when someone does it as a “joke,” it doesn’t feel like a joke, but I admit, sometimes I laugh along with them to keep from being devastated. Also, I sometimes make the jokes myself, to beat them to what I know will come eventually. Often, we are so divided about our differences that we forget to see that we are all human. We have much more in common than we have differences. When someone points out our differences in a derogatory or even playful way, it can sometimes be very hurtful. Sometimes though, separation is warranted.
Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, blocked two proposals on Thursday to create Smithsonian museums for Latino and women’s history from unanimously passing the Senate, saying there’s been too much “balkanization” in the country. Claiming “the last thing we need is to divide an already divided nation further,” Lee blocked proposals to establish the National Museum of the American Latino and the American Women’s History Museum. Supporters of the bipartisan bills to add these museums to the existing Smithsonian Institution collection had hoped to get approval on a voice vote, but as allowed under Senate rules, Lee blocked the bills. The bill could still pass, but it is unlikely to be accomplished by the end of the year.
I have to admit, I am torn over the issue of having Smithsonian museums for American-Indians, African-Americans, Latinos, and women (I’m sure there will eventually be one for LGBTQ+ as well). Let me explain my reason for being torn, and it has to do with what was presented to me by a Smithsonian curator (I work for a Smithsonian Affiliate). The Museum of American History was established to tell the story of the United States, not just white male elites. Their mission statement reads, “Empowering people to create a just and compassionate future by exploring, preserving, and sharing the complexity of our past.” It was created for everybody and to tell the complex and unique story of the United States of America. However, if new museums are always split from the Museum of American History, what story is left for the main museum? The most important artifacts will go to the various museums. I believe they should have expanded the Museum of American History to include areas devoted to each group instead of separating them and creating museums spread across the nation’s capital.
I will admit that the only Smithsonian I have been to is the Museum of the American Indian and the National Portrait Gallery. They were the only museums we had the time to visit when I was there. (I was only there for the morning as we flew in early and had an afternoon appointment to pick up some artifacts in Arlington.) I’d love to see all of the Smithsonian museums. I can speak only of my opinion, but I think the Museum of the American Indian, whose mission statement says, “In partnership with Native peoples and their allies, the National Museum of the American Indian fosters a richer shared human experience through a more informed understanding of Native peoples” does a poor job of representing all Native Americans. The five major tribes of the South (aka the Five Civilized Tribes, what an awful connotation that has) are hardly represented. It was impossible to find my Native American heritage (two of my great grandmothers were Native American: one was Creek; the other Cherokee) represented anywhere in the museum. No matter what the Smithsonian does, they will never be able to capture the whole story in the nearly two dozen Smithsonian museums, galleries, and gardens (also one zoo).
With the Smithsonian’s mission statement being, “The increase and diffusion of knowledge.” They have a lot to cover. So the dilemma remains, do they try to put everything in one museum, or do they establish numerous museums as they have to try and cover as much as possible? I think, for the most part, they are doing the best they can. What I disagree with Senator Lee with the most is his statement that the museums dedicated to the history of Native Americans and African Americans were separately built because those groups were “uniquely, deliberately, and systemically excluded” from history. I believe this is true of women and Latinos, as well. Senator Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who has been advocating for the National Museum of the American Latino for years, argued: “We have been systematically excluded.” Menendez said passionately on the Senate floor, “Believe me, we have been. And the only righteous way to end that exclusion is to pass this bill.”
The fact of the matter is that the Smithsonian is raiding its own museums, especially the Museum of American History, to create these other more inclusive museums. Also, consider which museum tells the story of African-American, Native American, or Latina women? Does that mean that the American Women’s History Museum will only cover white women? There isn’t an easy answer, but I think that the Smithsonian is doing the best they can to preserve the history of the and art of the United States. The curators at the Smithsonian have a difficult job when deciding what will stay at the Museum of American History and which will go to one of the other museums. I think the Smithsonian will get the National Museum of the American Latino and the American Women’s History Museum appropriations. I also hope that they will move to create a Smithsonian museum for LGBTQ+ history and culture.
One of the most significant problems with what Lee did was that he was the ONLY senator to vote against the proposal. I honestly don’t think it should be possible for one single solitary Senator to block a proposal from being approved. The United States needs to look at the archaic rules of government that have been created with so many loopholes that nothing can get done. We need action in Washington, we need strict ethics laws, and we need a way to force politicians to work together for the common good of all Americans.
This post was initially supposed to just be about the Zora Neale Hurston quote, and I was going to make a joke about “How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company?” However, things like this evolve into different posts at times. Here is the point I am trying to make in this whole post: we are all Americans, but until everyone realizes that and accepts that, we will always be labeled in some way or another. In the end, we are all human beings, even if some people, especially hate groups, don’t act like they are human. A prime example is the Proud Boys the other day lifting their kilts and showing their bare asses like a bunch of apes. The next thing they will want to do is throw poo at people. However, they, too, even if we don’t want them to be, are humans also.

On Thursday, Miss Coco Peru will be hosting her Christmas special, “Very Merry Casa Coco.” I’m not sure I will tune into it, even though I love Coco Peru, and she’s been around for nearly 30 years. I was telling a straight female friend of mine who loves drag queens about the Christmas special, and I was also telling her that I first saw Peru her role in the 1999 independent film Trick, a movie I particularly enjoy. It is one of my top five gay independent films of all time. Trickstarred Christian Campbell, John Paul Pitoc, Steve Hayes, and Tori Spelling. Tori Spelling is probably the most familiar name, but even her bad acting couldn’t ruin this movie for me.
Back when I was coming to terms with my sexuality, I would go to the Blockbuster in Montgomery and rent any gay film I could get my hands on. Most of them were foreign films, such as Beautiful Thing (1996—British), Come Undone,aka Presque Rien,(2000—French-Belgian), and Wild Reeds, aka Les Roseaux Sauvages, (French —1995). I enjoyed all of these movies, but I wanted to see more. In 2000, I moved to Mississippi, and while I continued to rent from Blockbuster’s lackluster selection of gay movies, I discovered Netflix. With them sending a DVD each time you sent one back (and they had a much more extensive selection), I watched many more gay movies. I was finally able to get my hands on some American films, mostly independent films.
Independent gay movies have always been hit or miss. If they’d been a genuinely great movie, they might have been picked up by a major studio and had the money for production and casting, but as independent movies, filmmakers made do with what they had. Some were bad; some made it to the list of my favorite movies. One of those movies was, of course, Trick. The acting is not always great in these movies, but sometimes the stories made them worth the mediocre acting. Occasionally, the acting was pretty good. But if you watched many independent gay films in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, you watched a lot of terrible movies. But like I said, there were some gems.
I remember seeing Billy’s Hollywood Screen Kiss and wondering how Sean Hayes continued to refuse to say publicly that he was gay when it was so incredibly obvious. Also, I fell in love with Brad Rowe. Besides Trick, the movie that I have watched numerous times because I love it is the 1997 movie Defying Gravity. This movie’s love story was so sweet, even if the film did not include the best acting. However, there was a hospital scene when Griff says, “Oh, man,” to Pete that I just can’t describe the feeling of what it’s like for me hearing this line. It’s not a great line; it’s almost corny, but it gets me every time. My heart breaks, and it soars at the same time. I can still hear that line in my head as I am writing this. I also enjoyed the 2000 film The Broken Hearts Club. Since he played Superman, I have had a thing for Dean Cain, too bad his politics are so fucked up.
In 2003, Latter Days was released, and it became one of my all-time favorite gay movies. As some of my friends can attest to, I have made them watch this movie with me. I love the two main characters, and while there are parts of the story that could have been done better, the airport scene is magical. Speaking of magical, I also loved the gay take on Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. In 2008, Were the World Mine was released, and I just loved it. There have been other movies, and I am sure I am forgetting some of the foreign gay films that I loved and some independent films, but these are just some of them.
I also have a few honorable mentions that were more mainstream films. I think the first gay film I ever saw was either The Birdcage (1996) or In & Out (1997). More recently, I enjoyed the movie Love, Simon. I have refused to watch Call Me by Your Name because I know how it ends. Then there were a few movies that were less apparent as gay films, such as Fried Green Tomatoes and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Fried Green Tomatoes ranks up there with Casablanca and Auntie Mame as movies in my top three favorites. I can’t tell you how many times I have watched those three movies.
By the way, I did not include Brokeback Mountain in this list of favorite movies. Although, in my opinion, it is responsible for allowing more gay mainstream movies to be made, it is just not one of my favorites. To be honest, I don’t like movies without a happy ending. The same is true of the books I read. I have enough in my life to make me sad; I don’t need someone else making me sadder with a movie or a novel. I read and watch movies to escape not to fall deeper into depression.
So, these are a few of my favorite gay movies. What are your favorites? What have I missed? Is there a movie you think I should watch (I may have seen it, but tell me anyway)?

[little tree]
by e e cummings – 1894-1962
little tree
little silent Christmas tree
you are so little
you are more like a flower
who found you in the green forest
and were you very sorry to come away?
see i will comfort you
because you smell so sweetly
i will kiss your cool bark
and hug you safe and tight
just as your mother would,
only don’t be afraid
look the spangles
that sleep all the year in a dark box
dreaming of being taken out and allowed to shine,
the balls the chains red and gold the fluffy threads,
put up your little arms
and i’ll give them all to you to hold.
every finger shall have its ring
and there won’t be a single place dark or unhappy
then when you’re quite dressed
you’ll stand in the window for everyone to see
and how they’ll stare!
oh but you’ll be very proud
and my little sister and i will take hands
and looking up at our beautiful tree
we’ll dance and sing
“Noel Noel”
Edward Estlin Cummings (often styled e e cummings) was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on October 14, 1894. He began writing poems as early as 1904 and studied Latin and Greek at the Cambridge Latin High School. He received his BA in 1915 and his MA in 1916, both from Harvard University. In his work, Cummings experimented radically with form, punctuation, spelling, and syntax, abandoning traditional techniques and structures to create a new, highly idiosyncratic means of poetic expression. Later in his career, he was often criticized for settling into his signature style and not pressing his work toward further evolution. Nevertheless, he attained great popularity, especially among young readers, for the simplicity of his language, his playful mode and his attention to subjects such as war and sex.
The poet and critic Randall Jarrell once noted that Cummings is “one of the most individual poets who ever lived—and, though it sometimes seems so, it is not just his vices and exaggerations, the defects of his qualities, that make a writer popular. But, primarily, Mr. Cummings’s poems are loved because they are full of sentimentally, of sex, of more or less improper jokes, of elementary lyric insistence.”
