I wonder just which Advocate editor Michael Lucas has incriminating pictures of, because it's hard to see any reason why they'd keep on publishing these columns.
This week Michael Lucas informs Advocate readers that the Cordoba Initiative to build a Islamic cultural center in Manhattan is nothing of the sort - it's a clandestine scheme to celebrate the conquest of the Muslim religion over New York City (as evidenced by the fact that everyone in NYC is Muslim now).
You can read the details of his argument at The Advocate, and a decent response to this hysteria from CNN's Fareed Zakaria is after the jump. The debate, to me, is just so stupid it isn't even worth getting into - are these same people going to oppose Christian churches built near places where Christians, at some point in history, have done something bad? I'm not holding my breath.
What is interesting to me is how gay conservatives often complain about how the "gay left" (defined as any gay person to the left of George W. Bush) tries to make the movement about "unrelated issues." It's probably their biggest and longest-running complaint, leaving them openly wondering how anyone can see any relationship between LGBT people's struggle for autonomy over their bodies and sex lives and women's struggle for autonomy over their bodies and sex lives.
And yet, a mosque/cultural center in Manhattan is worth writing about on the front page of The Advocate, because...? I would say that there is a connection, but not the one Lucas is thinking of - if we're to ever be free in the US, it will only happen if people become more liberal and accepting of difference, not intolerant and ready for battle at the first sign of danger or the smallest slight.
Moreover, you have to wonder what a gay Muslim would think finding The Advocate's website, especially if she were in the process of coming out: would she be encouraged to join us or think that we're a bunch of racists?
When Lucas derides the left for being too "politically correct" to see the danger here (which he never defines, but makes a vague reference to the possibility that rich Arab states funding the Cordoba Initiative... are you scared yet?), isn't that what we're asking for generally? I'm always suspicious of LGBT people who complain that there's too much tolerance going around, since we should know better than anyone that there just plain isn't.
More specifically, like most people who complain about political correctness, Michael Lucas becomes a little PC dictator if you step on his toes, like he did just a few months ago complaining how A-Gays don't take porn stars seriously. PC is only OK if it personally benefits Michael Lucas. What a wonderful philosophy, if you're Michael Lucas.
And once again I'm trying to respond to him, when the question is really for The Advocate. Is this the sort of content they think is relevant to the LGBT community? Is this the sort of opinion they think best represents us? Or are they worried that us poor little queers aren't watching enough Fox News so they're going to start taking story ideas from them?