Showing posts with label Gay News Corner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay News Corner. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Gay News Corner II

A Muslim First

Filmmaker Parvez Sharma gives a first-person account of making his new documentary, A Jihad for Love, about homosexuality in the Islamic faith and how his commitment to his faith and his desire to show the world another side of Islam brought him to his own jihad.


 A Muslim First


As the director of A Jihad for Love -- the world's first documentary to take a close look at Islam and homosexuality -- I am coming out as a Muslim man. My gay identity is secondary. Queer cinema is filled with stories of gays and lesbians revealing their sexuality, but my film is about people revealing their religion. With this film, the story of a 1,428-year-old religion is told by its most unlikely storytellers -- gay and lesbian Muslims.

Making this film and finding subjects who would be willing to share their stories with me was a "jihad" (struggle) in itself. In many of the cases it took me years to convince the subjects to participate, and I had to build relationships of mutual trust with them. What made it easier and certainly worth the challenge was that I was a Muslim like my subjects and we had much in common because of the backgrounds we came from. The entire process took six years of my life -- and these six years I cherish dearly for everything they taught me, not just about my own Islam but of the universal jihad, or struggle, to belong.

This film tries to construct the first real and comprehensive image of these unlikely creatures -- to be P.C., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer Muslims -- and it is forcing many audiences to realize that these terms are a Western construct. Let me be clear: None of these categories means anything to many of my friends living in Cairo or Islamabad. If anything, the languages they speak -- Farsi, Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi, and Bengali -- have very few words of affirmation to describe the "odd" and "unnatural" behaviors, so to speak, that we indulge in. The cinematic representation of these complex identities therefore has come with many of the challenges of almost developing a new language.

It is a little-known fact that a sexual revolution of immense proportions came to the earliest Muslims, some 1,300 years before the West had even "thunk" it. This promise of equal gender rights and, unlike in the Bible, the stress on sex as not just reproductive but also enjoyable within the confines of marriage have all but been lost in the rhetoric spewing from loudspeakers perched on masjids (mosques) in Riyadh, Marrakech, and Islamabad. The same Islam that has for centuries not only tolerated but also openly celebrated homosexuality is today used to justify a state-sanctioned program against gay men in Egypt -- America's "enlightened" friend in the Middle East.

When in New York I often wonder how the lives of the subjects in this film would strike the consciousness of, for example, a Chelsea boy. Traveling to more than 10 countries with the film in the last few months has made me wonder about the absence of religion within "gay" lives. Clearly, spirituality can provide a kind of freedom. But it is also clear that for too many of us religion has not remained an option.

For the last six years, I have found myself immersed in the souls and spirits of the people who have shared their lives and their most private moments with my camera. Sometimes when I look at the footage of the gay Iranian refugees who have almost no material or spiritual support or the gay man who was tortured in an Egyptian prison for two years, I feel a tremendous disconnect. Growing up in worlds not very dissimilar to theirs, I know I understand and can empathize -- but knowing that I sit in America or in Europe working in the film world, I feel a sense of tremendous emptiness. This disconnect is similar to what a filmmaker feels when real people and real relationships turn into two-dimensional characters in a movie.

Sometimes in these worlds, traveling with my American Jewish producer and others, I feel we could be at the edge of some kind of revolution within Islam. As a Muslim, I know that this could be my jihad. But then the disconnects come and haunt me at night. Yet whenever the gay imam in the film, Muhsin, or the Egyptian refugee, Mazen, join us, the dots all seem to connect very well.

For any filmmaker who sets out to make a work that is intensely personal, the process is emotionally overwhelming. As a gay Muslim myself, I had a sense of shared struggle and shared pain with all of the subjects. While the camera was on (I was the primary camera operator) there was always an exchange of emotion between me and them. It was my hope that our mutual histories, cultures, and struggles would translate to the screen. I cannot think of another way of working when you are examining a community where the silence has been so loud and so overwhelming.

I never sought government permission in any of the countries where I filmed because I knew it would not have been granted. What was always foremost in my mind was the safety of these beautiful human beings, these devout Muslims whose lives I was documenting. I took extreme precautions to make sure that the tapes I shot were always safe. I would always record "tourist-like" footage at the beginning and end of a tape, and I would always store the tapes in my check-in baggage, with a prayer. Security staff at airports in fundamentalist regimes (the United States being a good example at this time) are not the friendliest people. I did have a difficult time in some countries because filming such profound human stories is hard for anyone, but at the same time I knew that I was filming while I was essentially there as a tourist. The countries that were easiest to film in were Turkey and of course India, my home country. In both these nations, which have significant Muslim populations (India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world, after Indonesia, and Turkey is 99% Muslim), the attitudes toward homosexuality are definitely more open than in others, and people accept the idea that there is a spectrum of human sexuality.

One personal challenge in making this film was to keep my deep respect for and belief in my faith paramount. Sharing some of the stories of condemnation, of isolation, of pain, would make it easy to issue a blanket critique of Islam. I knew that as a Muslim I could not allow myself to fall into the trap of being an apologist for my faith, joining the bandwagon of post-9/11 Islamophobes. I knew that I had to be a defender of the faith as a Muslim filmmaker and at the same time engage in a critique of what I knew was wrong in orthodox Islam's condemnation of homosexuality. I have always said that I made this film with a Muslim lens, as a Muslim filmmaker who also happens to be gay. Too many films about Islam right now are made by Western, non-Muslim filmmakers, which while commendable is also problematic -- in a world that now largely perceives Islam as a problematic monolith. Currently our religion is under attack from within (from an extremist fringe) and from without (by governments and media only focusing on the violence). Islam needs us to step out as Muslim artists and take back the discussion of our faith.

Our last battles of acceptance remain to be fought on the front lines of religion. With our "jihad for love" we bring Islam out of the closet.

Source: Advocate.com

Parvez Sharma's A Jihad for Love blog

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Gay News Corner- Tax Time!

Today is April 15th, which means we file and pay our taxes in the U. S. Not having our relationships legally recognized can create many headaches for gay couples. Check out this article from the Advocate-


Tax Time for Gay Couples Means Complications, Higher Bills

For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.

Gay couples often pay higher taxes because they don't get the federal tax benefits that go with marriage. And for couples in state-sanctioned domestic partnerships, civil unions, or same-sex marriages, filing federal income taxes can involve doing three sets of paperwork instead of one.

''It's a significant financial disability,'' said Beth Asaro, who last year entered into one of New Jersey's first legally recognized civil unions.

While the debate over government recognition of gay marriage is a political hot-button with arguments about morality, civil rights, and tradition, the tax issue is a mostly practical one for thousands of same-sex couples.

Most states don't recognize same-sex unions in any way. Only in Massachusetts can gay couples legally marry. Since 1997, nine other states and Washington D.C. started offering civil unions or domestic partnerships that give some or all the legal protections of marriage.

Those protections include allowing gay couples to file state taxes jointly -- potentially saving them money. But they can also make tax filing more complicated for the couples.

That's because the state protections do not help with federal taxes. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the government recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman.

''You're running one household,'' said John Traier, a partner in the Butler, N.J., accounting firm Hammond & Traier. ''But the federal government and a lot of states treat them as two households.''

The same is true for unmarried straight couples who are living together.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Ind., home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

''I certainly think about it every payday,'' when the extra withholding is taken from his paycheck, he said. ''If you think about 10 years, $18,000 is a lot of money. That could buy me a pretty nice car.''

The tax on benefits for domestic partners also applies to employers. Companies including Chase are endorsing the Human Rights Campaign's push for a bill that would end the tax on health plan benefits for people who are neither the spouse nor legal dependent of the employee. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress in the last three sessions, but have never moved out of committee.

A government analysis estimated the bill would cost about $10 billion in lost federal tax revenue over 10 years. Advocates for the bill say it would create savings elsewhere, including reducing the Medicaid rolls.

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, said his group supports the concept, but not the specific language of the bill, because it does not propose increasing how much domestic partners could put into health savings accounts.

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples.

''I don't want to say it's chaotic, but it's very difficult for a lot of reasons,'' said Traier, the accountant who is in a civil union partnership himself.

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

But there are other issues even up-to-date software might not solve.

These issues also affect unmarried straight couples.

For instance, couples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

''If you are not a different sex'' from your partner, Schwartz said, ''you are strangers, basically, under federal law.'' (Geoff Mulvihill, AP)

Below is a lovely scene from the Botanic Gardens to help you get through your taxes. Note- this pic does include orchid porn! Make bigger by clicking on it. It is lovely enlarged and you can see the names of some of the orchids.
















Pic by Wicked's Mrs.

Monday, March 31, 2008

Queer News Corner


This is the first in a new series of Queer News Corners. From time to time, we will post a story of interest to the queer community. The following story is one I originally saw in The Advocate, but when I went to find it there, the website was down. This version is from the UK Times Online, and quotes most of The Advocate story. This is a fascinating account of a transgendered man who is pregnant, baby due July 3rd. It raises so many questions for both the gay and straight communities. Be sure to read at least some of the comments. They are really interesting. I had to wonder if they would have been different on an American website.

Thomas Beatie, a married man who used to be a woman, is pregnant with a baby girl


A married man who used to be a woman says that he is pregnant and will give birth to a baby girl in July.

“How does it feel to be a pregnant man? Incredible,” wrote Thomas Beatie, 34, from the Pacific North West of the United States, in the latest issue of the gay magazine The Advocate.

“Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am.”

Mr Beatie was born female, named Tracy Lagondino, but had gender reassignment surgery and is now legally male and married to a woman.

He decided to carry a baby for his wife, Nancy, because she had a hysterectomy years ago. He was able to get pregnant because he kept his female organs when he switched genders.

“Sterilisation is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights,” he writes. “Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire but a human desire.” The couple, who have been together for ten years, run a custom screenprinting business in Bend, Oregon, where neighbours do not know that Mr Beatie was once a woman.

“Our desire to work hard, buy our first home and start a family was nothing out of the ordinary. That is, until we decided that I would carry our child,” he wrote.

Before becoming pregnant, Mr Beatie stopped the testosterone injections he was receiving as part of his gender reassignment. “It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly. My body regulated itself after about four months and I didn’t have to take any exogenous oestrogen, progesterone or fertility drugs to aid my pregnancy,” he wrote.

The couple bought donor vials from a cryogenic sperm bank and, facing resistance and prejudice from doctors, resorted to home insemination. “Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Healthcare professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognise Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive; most of Nancy’s family doesn’t even know I’m transgender,” he said.

Mr Beatie’s first successful insemination ended in a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy with triplets that required surgery, resulting in the loss of all his embryos and his right Fallopian tube. “When my brother found out about my loss, he said, ‘It’s a good thing that happened. Who knows what kind of monster it would have been?’,” he wrote.

The second pregnancy resulted in a baby girl who is due to be born on July 3. “I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family,” he wrote.

Mr Beatie would not be the first transgender man to give birth, according to Lisa Masterson, an obstetrician at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles.

“A transgender man can be pregnant because he has the same organs as a woman,” Dr Masterson said on the ABC Good Morning America show.

Dr Masterson said, however, that transgendered men face special health risks resulting from their sex change. “It’s really important that he doesn’t take any testosterone early on in the pregnancy and later on,” she said. “That can cause male-type characteristics in the female baby.”

Some of the Beaties’ neighbours in Bend voiced scepticism about the pregnancy claim. One resident, Josh Love, told ABC: “I couldn’t say that he looks pregnant. I can stick my stomach out and almost make it look like that. I think it’s kind of bizarre. I don’t know if I believe it or not.”

The Advocate said it had confirmed the story with Mr Beatie’s doctor.

Source: UK Times Online

Movie club poll is still open. Vote if you haven't already!