Televised show jokes about using pesticide to exterminate "mariquitas" like Ricky Martin

Sometimes I am accused of being overtly sensitive about language which surprises me because I consider myself to be open to interpretation and context when it comes to usage of language that might be deemed homophobic. I also believe that tramping down on homophobic expressions or banning certain words does nothing to solve the underlying intent when someone uses such language.

This gets complicated when it comes to Latin America. Words that are considered to be homophobic slurs in one region might not hold the same connotation in another region. Take the word "playo" which is used in some areas of Central America to describe someone who is or appears to be gay in a derogatory way.

Outside the region people wouldn't even know what it means.

Or take the word "mariquita" which could be interpreted as the diminutive of "maricón" and akin to calling someone a "little faggot" except the word is also used as a noun for the insect known in the United States as a lady bug.

Both definitions enter into play in this clip aired on Panamanian national television in a comedy skit show called "La Cascara" ("The Banana Peel"). It's crass and not particularly funny and the punch line is particularly offensive.

In the skit two cartoon characters representing a narcissistic and self-involved wealthy Panamanian woman and her peasant caretaker find themselves transplanted to her vacation home in Miami where she introduces the caretaker to her Miami neighbors: Carlos and Ricky and their twins, a not so veiled reference to out pop star Ricky Martin and his family.

The "joke" hinges on the woman explaining to the caretaker that Miami is "inundated" with "mariquitas" (little fags) which the caretaker interprets as there being infested with lady bugs.  The show thinks it's hilarious to paint the caretaker as a dim idiot who inadvertently calls Ricky Martin a faggot to his face while explaining why he is spraying pesticide in Martin's face.

It's not the first time that the show has skirted bad taste and homophobia. In a different skit God asks a "good angel" to recommend ways to promote goodness and love between couples while "Lucifer" tries to trick the "good angel" into having God accept gays as being good and loving which is ultimately rejected.

I wouldn't have gotten wind of the show if it wasn't for Agustín Clément - a playwright and entertainer who is one of the few out personalities in Panamanian showbiz.

Agustín has often fought what sometimes seems a lonely battle against homophobia in Panamanian media and has been trying to draw attention to "La Cascara" and its homophobia for months with limited response.

He does have allies in the Panamanian LGBT advocacy organizations but their calls against homophobia are often just as easily dismissed.

Unlike the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) in the United States, there are no media watchdogs in the Latin American region able to support anti-homophobia efforts such as Agustín's.  GLAAD does have a Spanish-language media department but it's limited to the Spanish-language shows and publications produced and aired in the United States media market.

What Agustín has gotten in return for his advocacy is a public war of words with the producers and comedians involved with "La Cascara" and attacks from people who are fans of the popular show on Twitter and Facebook.

I found this clip to be particularly offensive so I offered to bring it to wider attention by adding translated subtitles and making people aware of what passes as comedy on this particular show.

If you have any ideas of how to support Agustín's efforts you can reach him through Twitter at @agusclement. Currently he is a morning anchor of the "Despierta Ya!" show on Bésame 91.3FM and produces and directs children's plays.

Reaction:

• Meme (The Backlot)

Related: 

• Opinion: Can baseball's Yunel Escobar blame "maricón" statement on cultural differences? (Fox News Latino)

Did Pope Francis back same-sex civil unions in Argentina?

If you have read any coverage of newly anointed Pope Francis this week and his views on LGBT issues you will no doubt be familiar with the following quotes (via GLAAD):

• On Marriage Equality: “Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just it's form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
• On Adoption: In 2010, he claimed that adoption by gay and lesbian couples was a form of discrimination against children. His rhetoric was so strong that Argentina's President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, said his tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition."

And yet, today the Associated Press reported the following:

According to the new pope's authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, [Jorge Mario] Bergoglio was politically wise enough to know the church couldn't win a straight-on fight against gay marriage, so he urged his bishops to lobby for gay civil unions instead. It wasn't until his proposal was shot down by the bishops' conference that he publicly declared what [Esteban] Paulon described as the "war of God" — and the church lost the issue altogether.

That was from the marriage equality fight in 2010 and it should be said that it was as a last stand against passage of the marriage equality law.

In an article published in Perfil on July 24 of 2010 an anonymous source claimed Bergoglio felt "used" in the run up to the marriage equality vote and hoped to eventually regain his progressive reputation by letting it be known he wasn't a homophobe.

The anonymous source also brings up Bergoglio's role in the passage of the 2002 same-sex civil union law that was approved by the Buenos Aires legislature.

An excerpt:

After the law was passed, the Jesuit once more sought refuge in the silence of prayer.  In the meantime, those who are near to him insist in presenting him as a progressive bishop, perhaps even from the "left", who had never used those terms when speaking about those issues.

"He doesn't have anything against gays nor transgender individuals and he never discriminated them during his duties as a pastor.  What prevails within him is christian charity," is the way a confident defends him.

And they add that Bergoglio felt trapped between two fires -- that of the government and that of his internal rival Héctor Aguer, the conservative archbishop of La Plata -- and he reacted as "a soldier of God."

Kirchner entered the game and she played to kill or be killed in the tradition of Saint Ignatius," say his closest friends.

In 2002 he has backed civil unions when they were passed by the Buenos Aires legislature and in April of that year he had proposed that the Church do the same on a national level.

What happened between April of 2002 and now, who is the real Bergoglio? It's a question that is often asked by the Government and within the church.

I have yet to find independent reports that Bergoglio did indeed back civil unions in Buenos Aires back in 2002.That law made Buenos Aires the first city in Latin America to adopt such laws.

UPDATE (3/18/13): Here is further indication Bergoglio would have backed civil unions for same-sex couples in exchange for scuttling the marriage equality law that Argentina adopted in July of 2010.

Just four months before the legislative vote, Bergoglio's spokesperson Federico Walls went on the record with Info News and said the following:

We do not seek to discriminate against unions between same-sex individuals. We don’t have a fanatic vision. What we are asking is that the laws be respected. We believe that we must propose more comprehensive civil union  bill than currently exists, but not marriage (H/t: Millenial).

My friend Mariano Lake writes to me from Argentina:

For Bergoglio, backing civil unions was a way to deny gays the right to marry and that's what the Argentine LGBT Federation fought for: The same rights with the same names. Bergoglio did not want us to be able to marry and a civil union was not a marriage.

To Guanabee or not to Guanabee...

Can you force someone to give an apology he or she does not believe in? Of course you can! It happens all the time in major showbiz or in sports.

Does it matter if the apology has been forced out of somebody if only to save face? Perhaps. But I'd rather the apology be sincere rather than half-assed or insincere.

This comes to mind because I took a decision last night to sever my ties with a website I have absolutely adored up to this point and has given this site major support as well (you no longer see their 'Partner Scoops' widget on Blabbeando anymore for one).

When quirky Latino gossip site Guanabee approached me a couple of years ago and asked if I was interested in being a "Featured Partner" I jumped at the chance. It's not that I got any monetary compensation from it but they often highlighted some of my posts which brought a lot of traffic to this site.  The value of that traffic wasn't necessarily the number of hits on Blabbeando but the fact that they came from readers of a non-LGBT Latino site.  In that sense, Guanabee helped to direct a lot of non-LGBT Latino readership to what happens to be a site with an LGBT-focus and I thought that was great.

As a gossip site, Guanabee does engage in campy humor sometimes and probably uses language that would not be used on other newsier sites. But, even within those parameters, yesterday I was alerted to a post that I felt went beyond the pale.

In "Eva Longoria Confronts Bitchy Queen on H8R", Guanabee Associate Editor Marcelo Baez using his Nacomprende nickname writes the following:

The CW is running a new show called H8R (pronounced "hater") where celebrities confront random people who hate them while attempting to win them over [...] We actually enjoyed the episode. In it Eva Longoria confronts a bitchy queen who fags out on her and her supposed self-Mexican hate

In the clip featured on Guanabee, a guy who comes across as an obnoxious twit goes all off on Eva Longoria's 'Latina-ness' and then gets all flustered and embarrassed when Eva Longoria shows up to challenge his views.

Call the guy an obnoxious twit, call the guy insufferable, but Baez instead calls him a "bitchy queen" who "fags out" when she shows up. This, on a site that is marketed to the general Latino public.

Up to this point, I've had a great relationship with the site's leading editors so I reached out to them to privately express my concern.  In response, I was forwarded a message that Baez sent to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) when they made an inquiry about the post.  In it, Baez stood his ground and argued that the informal tome used on the site and the fact that gays had appropriated terms such as 'queer' gave him the liberty to call someone a 'fag'.  Baez also argued that he wasn't necessarily questioning the man's sexuality but, instead, he was calling him off on his intolerance.

That pissed me off even more so I wrote back again and tried to calmly explain, among other things, the fact that gays appropriating certain language does not mean it gives free reign for these words to be used  at free will, by anyone, on any site or publication - or in day to day conversation.

I never got a response.  Instead, Guanabee posted a follow-up last night titled "Gays, Do The Words "Fag" And "Loca" Offend You? GLAAD Says They Do"in which Baez defends the post making some of the same arguments he made in the response to GLAAD e-mailed to me and expanded on them.

I blew a fuse. And I quickly fired a Tweet severing my relationship with the site.

In the meantime, GLAAD, who alerted me to the post in the first case and had been exchanging messages with the editors as well, also reacted.  They launched an action alert asking people to "Tell Guanabee.com you are not laughing". It mentions the actions I took last night.

In my anger I missed something in Marcelo Baez' latest post: For what I believe is the first time on the site, he tells his readers he is an openly bisexual man.  In retrospective, it does explain his argument about appropriation of words that are used to insult members of the LGBT community even though I still don't agree he should have used the terms.

Does this make any difference? There was no mention of this on the original post that would have led anyone to assume that Mr. Baez was trying to appropriate such language as an openly bisexual man.  Instead the words "fag" and "fagged-out" were used to denigrate the man in the CW show.  I have since had an exchange with Marcelo on my strong feelings that it would have been wrong even if he had disclosed his sexuality in that post and I know he strongly disagrees with my assessment.

This morning, though, I woke up feeling something was missing from all of this.  GLAAD's call to action will continue and sites, like this one, will begin to pick up on it.  Guanabee and Marcelo will decide whether to stick to their guns and push back - or eventually apologize.

But in the larger context of things, I do see an opportunity here to expand the dialogue on usage of these terms in the Latino community as well as whether the fact that the person using the language is a member of the LGBT community changes these dynamics in any way (in some ways, the debate is similar to usage of the 'N'-word among African-American individuals where some African-Americans feel it's always wrong and others feel it's a way to appropriate the term and strip it from it's original intent to hurt someone based on one's race).

As things stand right now, I have asked to be removed from the Guanabee site.  GLAAD is mobilizing against Guanabee. And Baez and Guanabee seem to be standing on their ground. I've had several exchanges with the editors of Guanabee throughout the day, including Marcelo, and they have expressed in no uncertain terms that they are sad to see me go, would love to continue the relationship, but understand my decision to go.

Part of me keeps looking at that post and the way the language was used, with or without the context that it was written by a bisexual man, and wonder how I can keep a relationship with a site that doesn't 'get' why I am so disappointment by the post.

Having said that, if Guanabee had been as homophobic as some are charging - and I am not talking specifically about GLAAD's reaction but that of individuals who might not have ever visited the site and are judging by this post alone - they would have never prominently featured this blog on their site and be so open to promote gay content on their site.  It turns out, according to Marcelo, that he is the editor at Guanabee who promoted most of the Blabbeando content that made it on their site.

I know I don't often ask readers to comment and with such long posts, who is gonna bother reading this entry to this point.  But, if you would please take a moment or two to comment, should I stay or should I go?  Would working with Guanabee promote an editorial decision I do not agree with or would it provide a platform for their general Latino readership to continue having access to my point of view on the issue and on other issues as well.

NYS Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. defends comparing homosexuality to bestiality

Mention "New York 1" to anyone in New York City and, if they have access to Time Warner Cable, they'll admit it's their first place to go for NYC news, politics, weather, sports and traffic.  Lesser known to New York City residents is its Spanish-language companion "New York 1 Noticias" which happens to be the host of one of the best weekly political television shows in the nation, "Pura Política". If you speak or understand Spanish and are interested in city politics from a Latino perspective, please do me a favor and watch it every Friday at 6pm EST or set your DVR to record it every week (Ch. 95 on basic cable / Ch. 801 on digital cable).

I have often featured clips from "Pura Politica" on this blog, particularly when host Juan Manuel Benitez has invited politicians and political candidates to address LGBT issues (i.e.: "Three Latino candidates oppose marriage equality as they seek statewide office" from August of 2010).

More often than not, the most riveting appearances on "Pura Politica" when it comes to LGBT issues have been the times that Benitez has hosted State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. and patiently and meticulously has challenged Diaz on his homophobia and dismantled each and everyone of the Senator's bigoted arguments against marriage equality and LGBT-rights.

There was that time when Diaz acknowledged marriage equality would become law of the land in the United States ("Supreme Court will allow same-sex marriages as a sign of the End of Days"), or the time Diaz blamed New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the lack of marriage equality in New York State ("Sen. Diaz: Blame Bloomberg for the lack of marriage equality in NYS"), and, of course, who could forget the time Diaz argued there was no such thing as separation of church and state in the U.S., particularly because Diaz himself argued he was THE church and THE state?

Those nuggets all came from previous appearances by Diaz on "Pura Politica".  On last Friday's show, Diaz appeared on the show once again and, when it comes to further exposing his religious-based homophobia, the show did not disappoint.  Here is Part 1 of the interview (you can click on the video to open up a larger view which might make it easier to read my translation).

I'll be writing more about this in days ahead but I hope you will watch every single minute of the first part of Benitez' masterful take-down of Diaz' homophobic arguments.

I do have to say that I had been waiting to translate Part 2 of this interview before posting it.  Today, though, I got scooped!

My friend Pam Spaulding hosted a post this morning by Tony Varona - a law professor and academic dean at the American University Washington College of Law who is on the board of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and is a former general counsel/legal director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) - in which he translated segments of the interview ("Antigay NY State Sen. Rev. Ruben Diaz Grilled On NY1"). The post has since been picked up by others, including the following:

• Sen. Díaz Lies About Marriage Bill, Attacks Gays, Scapegoats Lesbian Granddaughter (Think Progress)
• NY Spanish-Language Political Talk Show Interviews Anti-Gay Activist and NY State Senator Ruben Diaz (GLAAD)
• Juan Benitez’s Excellent TV Take Down Of Ruben Diaz (Queerty)
• More Lies From NY Sen. Ruben Diaz (Joe.My.God.)

If you click on the YouTube video above you will see my annotated translation.  I have also posted a transcript below.  I'll post the 2nd part of thee interview later this week.

"Pura Politica": Interview with New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. by Juan Manuel Benitez. Original air date: May 27th, 2011.

JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Here with us is State Senator & Pentecostal Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. Thanks a lot for being here in "Pura Politica" one more time. Let's begin here: This legislation does not affect your church. It's a civil issue. Why do you continue to oppose...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: That's not true... That's not true... that's not true...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Is someone going to force you to.. to...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Yes, according to the bill - look for the bill - how the bill has been drafted; in the future, churches will be forced to do it, yes. Now...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: That's not true. In other words, let's address the facts. This is about.. we are talking about civil marriages. No one will go to your churh to get married.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, no. Marriage is marriage...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Civil marriage...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Marriage is marriage. The bill has been drafted and, in its current form, this specific bill does not exempt churches nor ministers. The bill does not say that.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: The bill addresses civil marriage, not religious marriage...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: The bill addresses marriage between a man and a man, and between a woman and a woman.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: ...and you are referring to civil marriage, not religious marriage. Do you really think that the gay community - gay couples - will go to your church to get married?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I'd have to marry some of them according to...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: They'll go to your church so you can marry them!?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Well, who knows? They might go to my church so that I won't marry them... so that I won't marry them and they can then file a civil claim, file a discrimination suit, file a case to strip tax benefits from my church; because 'If I can't get married, then you are discriminating' and so the state cannot assist an institution that...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: I don't know if you've read the bill, but the bill specifically exempts churches. This is all about a civil marriage, marriages that take place at city halls, a non-religious civil marriage.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No. One of the new senators who is on the fence just said that he'd like [the exemption] so that it will be left explicitly clear - that the law will not force the hand of ministers from the churches and the synagogues.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And if there is an exemption, if - as you say - such language were included to exempt churches so there won't be any issues of discrimination, would you vote 'yes' for that type of gay civil marriage?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Me? Not me. Truthfully, no, because marriage for me is marriage in whichever form you like. That's the truth. I don't base my opinion against homosexual marriage on this and that. My basis is that it's against nature and that it's something that should not... not... not... ... ... should not be.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: 'Shouldn't be'. OK, last week we had Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito with us and she expressed her frustration that you've built yourself up as a spokesperson for the Latino community on this issue. This is what she said regarding the the publicity campaign for the rally you organized a few days ago in the Bronx. Let's listen.

COUNCILMEMBER MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO: ...and I believe that the mobilization and the ads that were also purchased - he bought on-air time in radio stations, and I listened to them - what he was promoting, I think, was hate - even if he says the opposite - a lack of acceptance, intolerance towards a few individuals who are deciding to live their lives however they wish to do so. And in trying not to promote it or support the legislation, and in trying to prevent passage of the legislation, of course! You are already entering that area in which you are not supporting the separation between church and state.

JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Your reaction.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: I have no idea what she is saying.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Well, she says that in the publicity campaign for the rally you organized a few days ago in the Bronx you were inciting, more or less, in your message - according to her - you had shades of hate; a message of hate.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Oh, man, I'm so tired of this. I'm so tired of this. You now, it's incredible. I don't even want to respond to it.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You're talking to me in English, say it to me in Spanish...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, I'm no longer going to respond to that. You know: The lies, how they twist the truth, the way they twist things to promote something, you know, shame is what these people should feel. These people should feel ashamed. How they change things; how they want to take things and change them; to portray what was said and what wasn't said. For what? That's so they earn people's sympathy. Shame is what they should feel.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But what...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: We have never spoken about hate. There is no such thing as hate. On the contrary, my granddaughter arrived and I embraced her and I told everyone 'this is not about hate'. Why do they continue to try and insist that we want to hate. We... everyone in America has the right to chose what they want. Some are in favor of something, some are against something. In other words, we cannot pray - the churches - when prayer is not allowed, when reading scripture is not allowed, we don't say that they hate us. That's...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Everyone does enjoy freedoms, as you say, but you are blocking gay people's freedom to get married with the person they love...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, we don't have the freedom. I cannot pray at church, I cannot pray at school, I cannot read scripture. Students cannot. Any teacher who does it is fired. In other words, there is no freedom. You can't do it. Whoever does it is fired. We are the ones who are being pursued. Christians are pursued for that reason. Christian religion is pursued when we are not allowed to do the things we want to do. We accept it. That's fine. But it's not that they hate us: They don't like us... they won't allow us to do it. So why is it that when one is opposed to something, 'AH! IT'S HATE!'...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You have always said it's not homophobia, that you are not homophobic...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: It's that homophobia... No, hate is what they do against me: The 'blasts' they send, the threats they send, the letters that come...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: But before we get to that, do you consider yourself... do you accept, as such, being called a 'homophobe'?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: How could that be!
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You are not a homophobe?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: How could that be! I have family! How many times do I have to come here to tell you the same thing. To tell people.. why... no, no...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Well, lets see: I'll read you the definition of the word "Homophobe" because I am a bit confused. The Royal Academy of Language says that "Homophobia" is an obsessive aversion towards homosexual individuals, your reply?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Obsessive aversion? And who has 'obsessive aversion' towards homosexuals?
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: You not only show aversion but also say things like this, let's listen, from two years ago, let's listen...

JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: If being homosexual is a sin against nature, do you then think that homosexuality is a choice or simply...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, it's a... it's akin to having sexual relations with animals, many people also want it.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: In other words, you think that having sexual relations - a man with a man and a woman with a woman - it's akin to having sexual relations with animals.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: They are both actions that go against nature. They are actions that go against nature. It has not been established by the nature of God that it should be that way.

SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: And what was it that I said there...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: In other words, you are saying... you are comparing relations between homosexual people with the behavior of...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: No, no, no. We are establishing what goes against nature. Relations between homosexuals go against... nature itself tells us, eh..
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: In other words, what you are telling us is that homosexual people go against nature.
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Yes. In other words, their relations go against...
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: And that's not an interpretation?
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Let's see... OK, if you want to say it's an interpretation that's your prerogative. The... something that goes against nature is something... nature itself says that marriage between a woman and a man are able to procreate [and have] children.
JUAN MANUEL BENITEZ: Where does it say so.. where does nature say that...
SEN. RUBEN DIAZ, SR.: Nature says it! Nature teaches you that a relation between a man and a woman can procreate children and that a relation between a man and another man or a woman with another... cannot procreate children. So nature itself... nature itself is telling you and the whole world 'This, I did not create'.

• This is part 1 of a 2 part interview. For a transcript of the rest of the interview please click here.

Major FCC complaint launched against homophobic Spanish-language TV talk show

TAKE ACTION: To support this effort, please click here and sign!

In July of last year, I wrote about the outrageous homophobia, transphobia and misogyny that ran rampant on a daytime Spanish-language television show called "José Luis Sin Censura" (Appropriately, I titled the post "Sickening").

I wasn't the first or the last one to notice. In my case, an anonymous reader sent me a number of clips from the show which I translated and posted on YouTube. Jeremy Hooper at GoodAsYou had also written about the show a month earlier than I did. And the guys at Queerty also followed up on my post.

Most importantly, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) also released a call to action which means the show's producers were put on notice.

Eight months later, though, and they continue to pull the same offensive stuff...

The result? Today, it was just announced that GLAAD is joining forces with the National Hispanic Media Coalition to launch an FCC complaint against Liberman Broadcasting who own the show.  An excerpt from the press release:

Los Angeles, CA, February 28, 2011 – The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) today filed a joint complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. and KRCA, a broadcast television station serving the Los Angeles area. The complaint is in response to a string of broadcasts of the Spanish-language television talk show "José Luis Sin Censura," which often contains indecent, profane, and obscene material, offensive language, nudity, and on-air verbal and physical attacks against women as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The organizations also launched an online action with the Women's Media Center (WMC) where concerned community members and allies can send e-mails to the FCC supporting the complaint or file their own complaints based on episodes they have witnessed.

GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios and NHMC President Alex Nogales will discuss the FCC complaint during an online press conference on February 28, 2011 at 1PM EST / 10AM PST. To access the streaming footage, please visit www.glaad.org/jlsc.

In over twenty episodes that aired between June 18 and December 7, 2010, the program contained images and language of the nature that is never displayed or is bleeped out of pre-taped English-language programs of the same nature, including the words "pinche" ("f*cking" in English) and "culero" ("assf*cker"), anti-gay language, including epithets such as "maricón," "joto" and "puñal" (or "f*ggot"), and anti-Latino slurs, such as "mojado" ("wetback"). The program frequently featured blatant nudity and female guests have been shown in violent fights. Hypersexualized images of women's bodies while stripping for male guests and audience members also make up routine offerings. Guests and audience members were often incited to engage in verbal and even physical attacks, especially against people perceived to be LGBT. Many episodes showed the audience standing and shouting anti-gay epithets and profanity at guests.

The Woman's Media Center, founded in 1995 by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem "to positively impact the visibility of women in the media, amplify women's voices on key issues in the national dialogue, fight sexism and bias against women in the media, and increase professional opportunities for women across all forms of media" is also supporting the action.

The organizations have also created an easy way to join them and take action. To do so, please click here and sign your name!

Some will say that the show, for those who do not understand Spanish, looks like a Spanish language version of "The Jerry Springer Show" and a lot of it certainly seems staged. But Jerry Springer nor his show's producers would ever have allowed and encouraged audience members to shout "faggot" at a host as someone beat him up as one of these clips show.

Spanish language media often gets an easy pass when it comes to this type of obscene content on television that clearly violates FCC regulations because they are low on the FCC's radar. Please take some time to click on the action link and make sure that the producers of "José Luis Sin Censura" know that this sort of homophobic content won't be tolerated.

Related:

• "José Luis Sin Censura" webiste here
• "José Luis Sin Censura" Facebook page here

Reactions (you might want to check reader's comments on these blogs as well):

• GLAAD filing FCC complaint against "José Luis Sin Censura" (AfterElton)
• At last! A call against 'José Luis Sin Censura (Mi Blog Es Tu Blog)
• GLAAD files FCC complaint against anti-gay Spanish language show (Rod2.0)
• GLAAD, National Hispanic Coalition file FCC complaint over homophobic Spanish-language show'José Luis Sin Censura' (Towleroad)
  GLAAD files FCC complaint against anti-gay Spanisg language TV show (Joe.My.God.)
• Will this mean talk show heed GLAAD's warning about calling everyone a 'maricón'? (Queerty) 
• While GLAAD goes after one homophobic Spanish TV personality, another goes unchecked (ngBLOG) 
• Homophobia in Spanish-language media: GLAAD files FCC complaint against TV show "José Luis Sin Censura" (Carlos in DC)

Blabbeando nominated for the 1st ever GLAAD "Oustanding Blog" award

Seriously. Seriously? --- OK, "Seriously" is probably the one of those 2010 expressions that I hoped wouldn't survive the new year but I can't help but use it as I express my surprise at being chosen as one of five nominees to the first ever Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) "Outstanding Blog" awards.

And the nominees are:

• The Bilerico Project / Twitter
• Blabbeando / Twitter
• Joe.My.God. / Twitter
  
• Pam's House Blend / Twitter
• Rod2.0 / Twitter

For a long time, GLAAD has used its awards ceremonies to highlight excellence in media and televised coverage of LGBT issues but this the first time they honor excellence in social media including blogs.

It's bizarre, though, to be named in the same list as Burlesque (a nominee for 'Outstanding Film - Wide Release'), Grey's Anatomy (a nominee for 'Outstanding Drama Series'). Modern Family (a nominee for 'Outstanding Comedy Series'), the Scissor Sisters (a nominee for 'Outstanding Music Artists) and others

A preview:

I wanted to highlight some of the other nominees that might not get as much attention elsewhere.  They include the incredibly moving Peruvian film "Undertow / Contracorriente" which I saw in December and thought was the best movie of the year (nominated as 'Outstanding Film - Limited Release').

And, under Spanish-language nominees, I wanted to highlight amazing Mexican singer Christian Chavez who came out a couple of years before Ricky Martin did (he released a solo album called 'Almas Transparentes' last year and is a nominee for 'Outsanding Music Artist - Spanish language nominees'').

The great thing about being nominated for this first-ever 'Oustanding Blog' award is not necessarily that I expect to win. It's that I know each and everyone who has been nominated and consider them to be friends.  It might certainly be a cliché, but I am truly honored to be nominated.

Thanks, GLAAD, for considering this blog worthy of the nomination.

Related:

• GLAAD website here
• GLAAD media awards page here
• GLAAD on Twitter here

Openly gay NYC councilman, GMHC, GLAAD ask for removal of HIV prevention ads targeting gay men

Clip taken from a segment shown to NY1 viewers in Queens on Dec. 13, 2010 (Additional info: "New Health Department Initiative Facing Opposition").

If you've lived in NYC over the last few years, particularly if you are a smoker, you are probably highly aware of a series of increasingly graphic print and television campaigns the New York City Department of Health developed to discourage people from smoking and encourage smokers to quit.

In its first incarnation, you saw "Ronaldo Martinez" speak to the camera and talk about getting a cancerous growth removed from his throat and taking his ability to speak away without the help of a machine (surprisingly, I haven't been able to find the televised version of the ad anywhere except in a different version apparently appropriated by an anti-smoking agency in Australia of all places).

I'm not a cigarette smoker but that specific ad seemed to have a punch to it. Sure, I changed the channel every time it came on, but you could certainly understand the ad's plausibility when it comes to long-term cigarette smoking.

The ads made an immediate impact, specially among friends who smoked.  They called NYC's #311 help line and ordered the expensive smoking-cessation kits that the Department of Health offered on a limited basis.

Researchers called the campaign a "huge success", at least in its early stages.  But it's not clear to me whether they took into account that the Department of Health was initially offering access to nicotine patches for free nor the fact that the city was increasing taxes on cigarettes

Not that I'm complaining. As an infrequent cigar smoker, I can say that one of better legacies of the Bloomberg administration is having barred smoking in bars.  And, apparently, some statewide programs still offer free nicotine patch or gum "starter kits" (click here).

But then came the other ads. The ones that said that smoking would make you lose your fingers (I kid you not). Or give you brain tumors. Or promote cavities. And I personally thought they'd gone off their rocker and gone punch-happy on negative messaging. Truthfully, the more graphic and preposterous it got, the less effective I felt the campaign was.

They even tried to replicate the scare tactics - laughably some may say - with campaigns to stem consumption of sugary drinks and the way they make people fatter. Gross, yes. Effective? Eh...

Which brings us to...


I've long been a critic of the public health policies developed by the New York City Department of Health under the Bloomberg administration and their reliance on scare tactics. And yet, I am inclined to like this ad. Why?

Well, it's certainly graphic and gross. But it speaks to the potentially horrible side-effects of being HIV positive. Does it say that everyone with HIV will develop these symptoms? No. But the ad does strongly imply that people with HIV are at a higher risk of being at risk of these illnesses - which I believe does act as a forceful HIV-prevention message.

Now, call me when the NYC Department of Health starts running messages saying that people with HIV are more prone to cut off their fingers as a scare tactic but, if memory serves me well, just a couple of years ago HIV prevention advocates were bemoaning that HIV prevention messages portrayed people with HIV as being all happy-happy and ultra-healthy when the reality of living with HIV wasn't nearly as cheerful.

Interestingly, a few of Michael Bloomberg's most vociferous critics seem to be backing this campaign while a number of advocates and organizations are calling for the Department of Health to pull the ads.

As the leading video attests, openly gay New York City Councilmember Danny Dromm is asking for the ads to be removed immediately as does the  South Asian Lesbian and Gay Association (SALGA).

Tonight, they've been joined by the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) which released this statement. An excerpt:

Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), the nation's oldest HIV/AIDS prevention, care and advocacy provider, today joined the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nation's leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, to demand that the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene pull a sensationalistic and stigmatizing television public service announcement aimed at gay and bisexual men.

The PSA, which is intended to encourage condom usage among gay and bisexual men, claims that those with HIV face a higher risk of bone loss, dementia, and anal cancer.  While older adults living with HIV may be at greater risk of these conditions, the PSA creates a grim picture of what it is like to live with HIV that could further stigmatize HIV/AIDS, as well as gay and bisexual men.

"We know from our longstanding HIV prevention work that portraying gay and bisexual men as dispensing diseases is counterproductive,"  said Marjorie Hill, PhD, GMHC's Chief Executive Officer.  "Studies have shown that using scare tactics is not effective.  Including gay men's input, while recognizing their strength and resiliency, in the creation of HIV prevention education is effective.  Gay men are part of the prevention solution, not the problem."

Both GLAAD and GMHC have reached out to the department to demand that the commercial be pulled and to offer assistance with framing the conversation around HIV/AIDS more accurately.

"While it's extremely important that we continue to educate New Yorkers about HIV/AIDS prevention, the sensationalized nature of the commercial, including its tabloid-like fear tactics, misses the mark in fairly and accurately representing what it's like to live with HIV/AIDS," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. "It's our hope that the department will work with us to create a PSA that promotes safety and solutions, rather than stigma and stereotype."

The funny thing (as funny things go when discussing these issues) is that one of the top Bloomberg administration critics when it comes to HIV prevention seems to  be bending over-backwards not to say a bad thing about this.

Housing Works doesn't take sides at all but provides all the links to anyone wishing to defend the Bloomberg administration's side of things.

And that, my friends, is truly as bizarre as it gets.  As for the ad... do you think it's effective? Do you think it sucks?  I am inclined to like it but haven't yet made up my mind. What are your thoughts?

Update: Via my friend Michael Petrelis, Larry Kramer chimes in:

to the nyc dept of health:

thank you. it's about time. this ad is honest and true and scary, all of which it should be. hiv is scary and all attempts to curtail it via lily-livered nicey-nicey "prevention" tactics have failed. dr hill knows this and her remarks below, once again, show her to be living on another planet. and since when is GLAAD in the hiv-prevention business? god help us if it is. gmhc is bad enough.

can we finally get real here? we are in the 32nd year, more or less, of a plague.

ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE GAY MEN IN AMERICA IS HIV POSITIVE. AND FIFTY PER CENT OF US DON'T KNOW IT!

these are appalling statistics.

And dr hill and some dude at glaad is telling me that prevention efforts, as they are presently constituted, are working.

of course people have to get scared. i have said this since day one and i say it today. they need to be scared into using condoms. into getting tested, into being responsible human beings. nothing so far has been able to bring a sufficient result to these requirements. why can't anyone see that? why can't our oldest aids organization see that? to say as dr hill does below that "studies have shown that using scare tactics is not effective" is, i believe, an out and out lie. i have never seen such research. if it exists, then it is as irresponsible as dr. hill and mr/s glaad.

i see a lot of doctors regularly during the course of looking after my own health. every single one of them is telling me that they are seeing more and more young and usually white men who are educated and should know better, sero-converting.

and with all the hoopla over hiv negative people taking this new once-a-day truvada "miracle cure" just so they can have sex without a condom, is going to be a nightmare of the highest order. i firmly believe this.

just as i firmly believe that NO prevention efforts can be rendered with the sugar coating it has been receiving since 1981.

i congratulate the nyc board of health for finally getting real. i look forward to even more and scarier public service announcements.

larry kramer

Michael actually does not like the ad.  For his comments, go over to his blog.

Related:

• Why can't we create an HIV PSA that doesn't suck? (this is fyf)
• GLAAD & GMHC call on NYC to yank graphic new HIV prevention ad (Joe.My.God.)
• Thought police go after NYC Health Department anti-AIDS PSA (Mike Tidmus) 
• Black gay HIV/AIDS agency applauds graphic PSA (Rod2.0)
• NYC Department of Health Graphic PSA: "It's never just HIV" (Rod2.0)
• GMHC, GLAAD want graphic HIV-prevention ad pulled (Towleroad)
• NYC Health Department releases graphic HIV PSA (Towleroad)
• Analysis of NYC'sWrong-Headed HIV Ad, and a Call for Accountability (Trevorade)

Update: Univision removes homophobic poll from website, apologizes

That was quick: On Saturday I wrote about a poll Univision had posted on their website.  It asked readers "Is Soccer compatible with soccer?" and provided three possible answers, two implying it would be OK as long as the player kept his sexual orientation hidden, and one that read "No, soccer is a sport for macho men."

Both Queerty and After Elton picked up on the post, Queerty noting yesterday that the poll had been removed from the site.

It turns out the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) saw the blog post and followed up with Univision.  From GLAAD's blog:

Just days after a CNN poll asked, “Are gay characters on television harmful to society?” the blogs Blabbeando and Queerty reported on a poll on Univision.com that asked site visitors “is homosexuality compatible with sports?” Among the choices was: “No, soccer is a sport for macho men.” GLAAD’s Director of Spanish-Language Media reached out to Univision.com on Sept. 13 to explain how this question demeans a number of people, including all gay and lesbian people already playing the sport and how the question perpetuates damaging stereotypes.

Today, Sports Editor Joaquín Duro acknowledged that publishing the poll had been a poor decision and apologized for having done so. The poll was removed. The story that generated the poll accurately reported on a German agent who made anti-gay remarks about Spain’s soccer team, and we thank Univision.com for that.

“Leading ‘poll’ questions like this only serve to perpetuate intolerance and misunderstanding about our community,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. “Univision’s swift action is the latest step in a trend of Spanish-language media becoming more responsible and open to covering LGBT issues in a fair and accurate manner.”

We greatly appreciate the prompt responses from both Univision.com and CNN. The next time any media outlet decides it wants to poll its viewers about whether gay inclusion is a good thing or a bad thing, we suggest that they instead ask themselves THIS poll question: “Does homophobia belong in the media?”

The answer is no.

Thanks, GLAAD!

Sickening

Last week, some anonymous person sent me a number of low-quality clips from a television show called "José Luis Sin Censura".

The show, which thankfully I've never seen in my life, is apparently broadcast in some of the major US television Latino markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Miami and Houston.

Think of a smuttier "The Jerry Springer Show" with no concern shown for FCC fines, particularly in their demeaning portrayal of gays, lesbians, women and transgender folk.

I have compiled the six or seven clips I was sent and uploaded them as a single clip on YouTube.  I believe the clips come from two separate shows...



Looking for additional info online, I was happy to see that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) was already on the case.  An excerpt from their June 18th statement:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) asks you to join calls for the reality talk show José Luis Sin Censura to immediately stop using defamatory terms and apologize to viewers. The terms “maricón” and “puñal,” which in English translate to “fa**ot” were chanted by audience members on the June 8 segment of the program. The same pattern occurred on the June 10 segment of the show, when audience members chanted “puto,” a word that also means “fa**ot” in many Spanish-speaking countries.
GLAAD reached out to executives of the company that produces José Luis Sin Censura to express our concerns, but the company has not responded.  The show is produced and distributed by Burbank, CA-based LBI, Liberman Broadcasting Inc. José Luis Sin Censura airs daily on Estrella TV in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Houston and other large Latino markets. By one estimate, Estrella TV reaches about 70% of the nation’s Latino households and millions of Latinos nationwide.
The show’s format pits guests against one another in combative situations. This often leads to violence, which audience members are encouraged to cheer and sends a message that violence against LGBT people is okay.

They urge people to take action NOW and express their outrage.

I was also glad and not surprised to see that the amazing Jeremy Hooper of Good As You was on the case as well. He's got additional damning footage of the show on his blog.

The coming out of Ricky Martin: Reactions

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination (GLAAD) has released a statement on Ricky Martin's coming out.  It's a statement from Jarret T. Barrios, the agency's Executive Director:

When someone like Ricky Martin comes out, hundreds of millions of people now have a cultural connection with an artist, a celebrity and, perhaps most importantly, a father who happens to be gay; His decision to model this kind of openness and honesty can lead to greater acceptance for countless gay people in U.S., in Latin America and worldwide.

Yay!

In the meantime, I did take a gentle swipe at GLAAD's language usage policies when it came to Ricky Martin describing himself as "homosexual" in my previous post.  That's because I have long held that the usage of the word "homosexual" is common-place in Latin America: When people use it, they don't intend it to have a negative connotation.

The word "homosexual" is certainly there in the Spanish-language version of his coming out statement and was probably left intact when someone translated it for the English-language statement to Spanish. They probably didn't know that it wasn't kosher to leave it there (I must confess I sometimes translate 'homosexual' to 'gay' when I do translations from Spanish language articles just as I translate 'travesti' to 'transgender').

But, as the news broke on Twitterlandia - and elsewhere - I was struck by a certainly understandable divide.

There were those in the United States who only knew the singer for his "Living La Vida Loca" cross-over attempts and his vagueness about his sexuality over the years. For the most part, today, they were dismissive and quick to say that it was too late for him to come out. Not a comprehensive survey here by any means, but they included openly gay US Representative Jared Polis, and bloggers like DListed and AmericaBlogGay,

On the other hand, there were those of us Latinos who knew that Ricky Martin had never defined himself by his cross-over attempts or had lost any stature in Latin America just because he had failed to sustain his cross-over moment in the United States.  Those of us who knew about his longstanding efforts to eradicate child abuse throughout the world (click on: The Ricky Martin Foundation).  Those of us who, like everyone else, suspected he was gay but didn't think he would ever come out. Those of us who thought that he would nevertheless make a huge impact if he ever did. Particularly among queer youth who looked up to him and were struggling to come to terms with their sexuality.

So, let me go against the grain and congratulate Ricky Martin for coming out today. I, too, would have liked it to have happened sooner, but I do not feel I can properly express just how huge this is when it comes to Latin America.

For proof of the immediate impact, you might want to go to the outpouring of support from fellow stars that followed Ricky's coming out announcement on Twitter.

Those include:

• Mexican singer Christian Chavez, who might as well be called the first Latino super-star to come out. On his Twitter account he wrote "Ricky Martin, I am so proud of you. Wow! United, things will change! With liberty! With love! Out with face masks! Let's love each other as we are."
• Colombian singer Juanes who Tweeted "all my respect and love for you Ricky, you are a gentleman"
• Venezuelan singer Ricardo Montaner who Tweeted "the Ricky Martin of yesterday is the same Ricky Martin of always. And he is my friend!"
• Mexican singer - and longtime ally Gloria Trevi -who Tweeted "Ricky Martin, illuminated and with a sincere heart."
• Spanish singer Alejandro Sanz, long rumored to be gay himself, who Tweeted "a strong embrace and all my friendship for Ricky Martin. You are loved and respected. So good that you are at peace with yourself. Kiss your babies" (you might know Alejandro from this Shakira video).
• Desperate Housewives' Eva Longoria, who just Tweeted "You are inspiring and beautiful, I love you so much!"
• And the amazing (and most popular current Puerto Rican artist) René Pérez Joglar, also known as Calle 13's "El Residente" who Tweeted "Ricky Martin: Being a man doesn't have to do with your sexual preference, but with the honesty with which you sustain your words" and "Ricky Martin is much more of a man than many a man who says they are a man."
• And, OMfuckin'G, even Veronica Castro - who would not go lesbian for a Mexican TV show - deems is necessary to jump into the fray and say "You are a wonderful human being and an unstoppable artist; My support for you in everything you do, I send you a kiss."

And just by those, tonight, you will have an inkling of just how many barriers Ricky Martin broke tonight. Yes, it might have come late in his career. Yes, you might make light of it if you want. But, in some ways, the earth moved today in Latin America when it comes to LGBT rights.

Related:

• Ricky Martin comes out - Oriol's POZ Blog, March 30, 2010

Paquita la del Barrio on adoption rights for gays... and her apology

At the beginning of March, I found myself in the same room with some leading Latino LGBT rights advocates and allies who met on the issue of the state of the Latino LGBT community in the United States.

During a break, I walked over the table where Oscar De La O was sitting (he is the Executive Director of the largest Latino HIV service agency in the country, Bienestar, which is based in California) and found him having an angry discussion with others. He wasn't angry with those at the table, mind you, but he was discussing comments made earlier that week by popular Mexican ranchera music singer Paquita la del Barrio on the topic of adoption rights for gays in Mexico.

The singer, known for her outrageous lyrics and for taking strong positions against Mexican sexist male culture, had appeared on "Al Punto" on Univision on February 21st and had the following exchange with anchor Jorge Ramos (if you click on the link, jump to the 4:30 mark):

Jorge Ramos: On March 4th, in Mexico City, gay marriages will be allowed. Mexico City is taking the leading role in this... well, in this angle, and many times, in Latin America, what do you think of this?
Paquita la del Barrio: Very wrong.
JR: Why?
PLDB: Because, no, eh... OK, I'm still in agreement with a couple getting married but, in what, eh, is... adopting a creature. No, I am not in agreement.
JR: Hold on, let's go by parts. You are in agreement with allowing a man and a man to get married, that a woman and a woman can get married. On that you are in agreement.
PLDB: That, more or less, is how it is. But, as I said, adopting a creature for those people, no, no, that is not honest.
JR: Hold on, when you denounce violence against women, you are denouncing discrimination.
PLDB: Of course.
JR: Gay people, homosexuals, would then say that not allowing them to lead an equal life to a man and a woman would also be one type of discrimination.
PLDB: No, no, no, no. That's very wrong because I will nothing more than... will make one thing clear. You, let's say, are gay. You marry another gay. You adopt a creature. And when that creature grows up, he will say 'OK, whom will I call dad and whom will I call mom.' [I'll bring] nothing more than that argument for you...
JR: But, but, I have colleagues who are gay and are two mothers or two fathers...
PLDB: Two mothers and two fathers?
JR: Uhum...
PLDB: Well, I don't know. It's wrong! It's very wrong! The creature will end up crazy.
JR: So this that has been happening in the city of Mexico, you wouldn't like it to happen throughout the Mexican Republic or that it spreads.
PLDB: Nowhere in the world. To finish making my point.
JR: But, perhaps, and let me insist on this, you don't believe that this is a form of discrimination.
PLDB: No, it's not discrimi... no, no, no, no. No. They are human beings that, as a matter of fact, personally I care for them a lot, I have many friends, but that doesn't set things up for that; that they adopt a creature.

I had seen the interview after it aired but wasn't necessarily as incensed as Oscar. Instead I was struck by the dichotomy of someone who would claim to love her gay friends and support their right to marry, on the one hand, but also state that children might be driven insane if they were adopted by a gay couple. I might be in the minority out there, but I actually think she was being sincere in both respects.

It all comes down to this: The argument that adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home has been mostly won in Latin America. It explains, in part, the increasing support for civil unions or marriage rights for gay couples throughout the region. But, on the specific issue of adoption, the old stereotypes still prevail. Gays are out there to recruit children and turn them gay. Homosexuality is a learned behavior and children can pick it up almost by osmosis. Whatever gay adults do in their own home might be OK if you don't think about it but it's certainly grosser than whatever straight adults do at home (I mean, we don't sit around scratching our bellies as we watch football, do we?).

Then came this: On March 12th, gossip show "Escandalo TV", also on Univision, caught up with Paquita during a promotional stop in Los Angeles and interviewed her again. THAT interview was picked up by the gossip show "NX" on Televisa and posted on YouTube that same day. I picked up on it and did a rushed translation and posted this version on March 13th...



It's only now ghat I've realized that the clip on "NX" has been edited so here is the translation of the full comments from the original Escandalo TV clip with bold typeface indicating the segments that were missing (not that it ads a lot to it but it starts at the 1:45 mark):

PLDB: What I said was that it was not... that it's not in my taste that a poor creature should be adopted by them. They can do whatever they want with their lives.
Angel De Los Santos (Reporter): I read a commentary when the controversy began, which said 'What would Paquita prefer: That a child dies of hunger in the street and lonely, or that two human beings give him love, give him food, give him a roof...'
PLDB: That he die...
Reporter: You prefer that he die...
PLDB: It's better for the child to die and not that life for the creatures.
Reporter: OK...
PLDB: Yes, because if I had a son, I would never be at peace if he was with them... Yes?
Reporter: Why, Paquita...
PLDB: ...my respect to them, I care for them a lot, but you have to give a place to he who is owed.. he who deserves it.

Now, it's one thing to have a personal conviction that gays shouldn't adopt, as homophobic as that conviction may be, but quite another to say that homeless children should die rather than be adopted by gays.

The response was quick and visceral. Blogger Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God. fame noticed that I had uploaded the video on my YouTube account and asked me for some background. I asked him to hold while I wrote about it but before I could do it blogger Andy Towle also picked up on the clip and posted it on Towleroad on March 15th - and kept it on his top news header for almost a week.

Stateside, aside from Univision and Telemundo, People en Español was among the first non-blog media to pick up on the controversy in an online article posted on March 12th - the same day that the original clip aired.

On March 15th, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) called on Paquita to apologize.

On March 16th, Monica Trasandes, Director of Spanish Language Media at GLAAD joined Oscar De La O and Bienestar in Los Angeles to publicly call for Paquita to apologize.


A local NBC affiliate picked up on the press conference on March 17th. A 14th minute clip features Oscar talking about the controversy as well as Victor Cordero, an on-air personality for the local Telemundo affiliate. Cordero, who says he knows the singer, vouchers for the enduring appeal of Paquita La Del Barrio in Mexico and among the Mexican and Mecican-American community in the United States and her strong support for women's rights. Here's an excerpt (starts at the 9:17 mark):

I personally know her, and I think - first of all, this is my opinion - I don't think she really meant to say that, number one; number two, I think she has - being Mexican, being with all those roots, if you will - she probably doesn't agree with the gay community, although it's very important to mention she has a lot of gay community followers, a lot of, ah - when she comes over to Los Angeles and she does the parade for the gay community she's very loved and, unfortunately, this, what she said, I'm gonna say she didn't meant to say it. One thing led to another, it's one of those situations where you mis-express yourself. And, again, this is just what I think by knowing her. And, of course, the media has been trying to make a living out of this and we're gonna wait and see if she gives another interview and see if she can rephrase this.

Cordero also says that her possible lack of education growing up and her ignorance on the topic of homosexuality might have made her trip up when she was posed the question.

On March 17th, Los Angeles Times blogger Daniel Hernandez, who is based in Mexico City, picked up on the scandal.

Online responses were also quick and harsh. A man in California created a Facebook Group called "Boycott Paquita La Del Barrio" which has drawn 1,200 members. Another Facebook group, created in Mexico, is titled "I prefer if Paquita La Del Barrio dies rather than she be adopted by a gay couple" and has 1,500 members. Twitter has the inevitable #PaquitaLaDelBarrio hashtag, which has been winding down from all the activity that it saw last week. Some on Twitter joked that Paquita La Del Barrio finally was getting what she always wanted: Cross-over success, since the Times and NBC Los Angeles were featuring her.

Others in the United States such as Queerty, Vivir Latino, Guanabe, LezGetReal, Terra, La Opinion, etc. also chimed in.

On March 2nd, days after the first interview aired on Univision but before the follow-up interview occurred on Escandalo TV, Paquita was among the many Latino stars who taped a 2010 Spanish-language version of "We Are The World" called "Somos El Mundo" to benefit victims of the earthquake in Hati. I won't post the video since it's so embarrassingly awful but you can check it out here.

Along with Paquita, a who's who of Latino stars took part in the performance, including Ricky Martin, Juanes, Shakira, José Feliciano, Vicente Fernandez, Pitbull, Andy Garcia, El Puma, Chayanne, Jon Secada, Juan Luis Guerra, Aleks Syntec, Gloria Estefan, Olga Tañon, Paulina Rubio, Daddy Yankee, Aventura, and, ehm, David Archuetta of American Idol fame.

Not that they have been individually reached to comment or need to do so but I think it's telling that of all those present at that taping, only two have spoken up against Paquita's words. Thalia, wife of music impresario Tommy Mottola, whose "Arrasando" is a staple at many Latino gay bars and recently covered the Alaska y Dinarama gay anthem "A Quien Le Importa", told Es Mas the following:

I believe that it's a commentary that is out of place, because they have fought for their dreams, them as a community, and they are seeing doors that have just begun to open, that they have legalization of their marriages and have additional rights in the society in which they live.

I have many friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell, who has her children and I have seen the passion, the love, the adoration she has with her children.

The second "We Are The World 2010" is Christian Chávez, one of the few commercially successful openly gay Latino singer in the world, who told People en Español the following:

I think it’s really sad especially being in moments in which, for example, in Mexico gay marriages are accepted, which is a big step forward, especially for the Mexican culture and a great example for all Latin America. It’s very sad to see someone who many people admire and who has been an icon for the gay community to say something like this… I was recently at an orphanage and saw many kids that are in need of caring, they need sneakers, shoes, a good education. I invite people to see things for what they really are before making prejudices. Mexico is one of the countries with the most domestic violence and child abuse. What is more normal, for kids to see their parents beating each other, being molested sexually, having their mothers beaten, in which many times they look to escape and abandon their kids? Is that normal?… Gay people aren’t perfect, but neither are heterosexuals. There are well-educated homosexuals that are responsible enough to be great parents and there are heterosexuals that shouldn’t be able to adopt kids. I don’t understand why we have to cut off an opportunity for a child, prefer to see them die than to get a proper education, a roof over their heads, a home. I think it’s absurd and very sad [translation c/o Latino Gossip].

With all the increasing public outrage, there has been pressure on Paquita to apologize and this week she did. Daniel Hernandez at Los Angeles Times reports that Paquita extended apologies for her comments, blaming her upbringing - if not exactly changing her mind on her opposition to adoption by gay couples - and said that she would make public amends to the gay community tomorrow in Mexico by performing at a gay bar in Mexico City. Late word tonight is also that a popular gossip show on Univision called "El Gordo y La Flaca" ran an advance clip from n interview that they will air tomorrow in which she breaks down and cries:


What she says in the clip:

Paquita la del Barrio: [The reporter] asked like this, rapidly, it didn't even give me a chance to think what to answer. I ask for a thousand apologies. I am sorry. Understand. But no. I don't know. Morally, I feel really bad. At one point I thought about killing myself, I am telling you this, but I have the moral force of my children. They are not at fault. I already lived my life. It's that a person should not be hurt... should not be hurt like that..

As I said, one of the first US-based media venues to jump on the story was People en Español. They have also posted up follow-up stories on the scandal. The main reason they have devoted so much space to Paquita's statement? Most probably it's the fact that it hit a personal nerve with People en Español editor Armando Correa.

Armando is, perhaps, one of the most powerful gay Latino men in Spanish-language media in the United States. He is also the author of "In Search of Emma", a personal account of the search for his first adopted child with the help of his partner of 24 years, Gonzalo Hernández. Today, they are the proud parents of three children (Carole Joseph, Senior Writer at People in Español, posted the picture on the right on her Twitpic account with the legend of "Armando Correa with his babies. I took this photo specially for Paquita").

On Friday, March 19th, AOL Latino's Celestrellas published an interview with Armando Correa. I personally think it's the best response out there to what Paquita la del Barrio said. Mind you, this is before today's "El Gordo y La Flaca" clip for tomorrow's show was aired. And it's no small measure that it's the editor of People in Español speaking. Here is my translation (I hope I haven't bored you enough by all that preceded this and that you will read this)...

AOL: Armando, how do you feel about the declarations from Paquita la del Barrio?
AC: When she said, with Jorge Ramos, that she thought a gay couple should not adopt, I accepted it. We all havethe liberty to think whatever we want, she is not part of a minority but, instead, a majority who thin that gay couples should not adopt, she expressed her point of view and said it with a great deal of decency. But when she gave the other interview, sitting down, and said that she preferred that a child die instead of being adopted by a gay couple, that in itself promotes hate and intolerance. When you are a public figure you have to think a lot about what you say because you could hurt many communities that are your public and you could be promoting hate and intolerance, and, in this society, the least that is needed is that, we have to learn to respect. We are all equal, we are human beings, but at the same time we are very different. In the measure that we accept the existence of black, white, Asian people, that gays exist, disabled people, when we accept our differences the world will be different. As a public figure one has to think what one says, We are fighting for immigration reform, there are still many phobias in this century, hate against immigrants, for example, we have to promote tolerance and love. What Paquita has provoked is a lesson for the whole world.
AOL: Why do you say it's a lesson?
AC: I'll give an example that has nothing to do with whether or not she hurt the gay community. If you talk to a Hollywood actor who thinks the borders should be shut down, throw out illegal immigrants, how would we feel? How would Paquita herself feel as a minority in this country? What would happen with these kind of statements with the hate that exists against Mexicans in California? We have to romote tolerance, whether or not she referred to the gay world.
AOL: Many of Paquita's followers are poor with few educational opportunities, in what way do you think her thoughts can influence what her followers believe?
AC: All of a sudden I hear a person I like and admire say that they prefer that a child die instead of being adopted by a gay couple, people may believe that she is reasonable and I believe that is the greatest danger, when a public figure says those kind of phrases that promote hate. We are talking about a majority in this country who think a gay couple should not adopt, we are not talking about a minority, we have to educate the public, it's not an issue of going to vote, this is a social problem. It's as if in the 60's we asked the government if Afro-Americans could marry whites or is a black person had the same rights as someone who is white. That is not something you would put up for a vote but, instead, it's a social transformation, you have to educate the public, the society. If in the 60's you'd ask Southerners if they believed blacks should have the same rights as whites they would have said 'no', but you can't put that up for a vote because they are human rights, rights that we all have.
AOL: After those declarations Paquita, she gave some apologies. Do you think she was sincere?
AC: Of course not. I think she should have expressed being sorry about saying it, but not about thinking about it. That entails a public relation campaign to be able to save an image, everyone who works with her know that it can affect her concert earnings. The other day Raúl de Molina [ed. - the lead host of "El Gordo y La Flaca", who will air his interview tomorrow and has his own shady history of homophobic statements on the show] said that half of her concert-goers were supporters from the gay community. I believe there is a lot of fear that it might have an effect on her earnings. I am not promoting we should not listen to her, nor to buy her album or attend her concerts. She is an artist, her music is there and her presence will be there, what I say - and it's a message not only for her but for all public figures - we have to promote love and tolerance.
AOL: Paquita said that as a way of apologizing she would give a concert at a gay disco and, perhaps, a [gay bar] tour, do you think she might be using this now as promotion and for publicity?
AC: That would be a sad answer and it would be in bad taste to amend what she did in that manner, she is commercializing it, she is not giving free concerts for the gay community in California or wherever it is. She is doing her job and seeking an economic gain, but on some ways it is part of the business and part of the solution. I believe the public has reacted to her comments, with only a few exceptions of those who have shown themselves favorable to Paquita's comments, but people are hurt with the second declaration. The other day we were talking to Raúl Molina that she doesn't need to as forgiveness from the gay community but, instead, from those children she preferred to see dead instead of being adopted by a gay couple.
AOL: Would you like to interview her?
¿Te gustaría entrevistarla?
AC: A difficult question... She is also a human being and I'd like to know how she feels after making those statements. No one bathes themselves in a miraculous river and thinks one thing one day and another the next day. She is firm in her convictions that it's what is best for a child and my job is not t convince her, but she is an artist in this medium and if I have her before me I will greet her and if I have to interview her I will interview her.
AOL: What would you say if you had her in front of you?
AC: I would tell her that she should be careful when expressing what she feels when she is a public figure because, even without wanting to, she is promoting hate and intolerance; and not to think about it only when referring to one community, and it's the gays, but that she thinks about it whenever someone can do such a thing against immigrants and the millions of Hispanics who live in the United States and that suffer discrimination in some regions.

sino que lo piense cuando alguien puede hacer eso contra los inmigrantes y los millones de hispanos que viven en Estados Unidos y que en algunas partes sufren la discriminación".

Thanks, Armando!

Download:

FLVMP43GP