Monday, October 5, 2009

Postscript on the Gay Sex Museum Drama

Remember how I got all concerned last week that the first images the media would have of gays tying the knot under the domestic partnership law that went into effect on Oct. 1 would look like this...


...instead of like this?


Well, thanks to this blog and a whole lotta other folks who saw the common sense in what I was saying, this is what ended up on the front page of the R-J was this Craig L. Moran shot:


Isn't that sweet? Mainstream? Inoffensive?

And the folks at the Erotic Heritage Museum had a small gathering with no media coverage and no gay couples celebrating their domestic partners. From what I hear, it ended up being more a roast in my dishonor.

Now, I know some folks are really, really mad at me. This angry screed from the Sin City Sex Blog gave me an enormous amount of credit/blame as if I alone can get, as she wrote, Nevada legislators and politicians to make calls at 2 a.m. to put the kibosh on the plan for a public celebration at the sex museum involving drag-queen nuns and other outlandishness. (It's a very colorful post that I encourage you to check out. Sample: "I was sickened by their willingness to accept what he had done – sickened by the diarrhea that spewed from his fingertips onto the Internet for the whole world to read.")

What's fun about that blog post is that it essentially states that I was right -- "Steve Friess might have been right, in fact, he probably was" -- but that I should have handled it quietly even though a press release had already been issued all over the place and had as its contact someone who should have had a better grip on the PR issue here, the associate publisher of the local gay paper. (He turned out to be the would-be star of the debacle, too.)

So, once again for the record:

* I am not against the Erotic Heritage Museum and I do look forward to checking it out soon.
* I don't mean to take anything away from the fine fundraising and HIV/AIDS awareness work of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
* I still think Elvis impersonator weddings are silly and cliche.

As for why I didn't make quiet phone calls, maybe that's because I have no desire to be a part of power structures. I work alone. I do not conspire with gay leaders or politicians or business leaders to make certain things happen. I am a member of the media. I point out things I see on this blog and elsewhere and let others decide for themselves whether my view is sensible or stupid, ingenious or ignorable.

But it is interesting that the same folks who think it's unseemly, embarrassing and counterproductive for gays to debate legitimate issues publicly were not concerned at all about the PR mess that this event would have created.

3 comments:

ChrisR said...

By the end of the Sin City blog posting I had no idea what the writer actually thought about it all, except that they don't seem to like YOU too much.

I think your stance you make on journalism is entirely appropriate. You report your view, others can decide. It's not like you only make such views known on LGB issues...

Michael said...

Made for some interesting reading.

atdnext said...

Poor Steve. It's not like you were the only one asking questions about it. And again, I just want to say that I did NOT oppose the celebration. Rather, I just didn't like the museum trying to make it into a big media event that would have not just been horrible for Las Vegas' LGBT community, but also potentially damaging news for the pro-equality campaigns in Washington and Maine.

I'm just glad the media looked elsewhere and this whole fiasco is over. :-)