Bat-Man and Mr. Right, by Michael Davis
Above Gotham City, Bat-Man looked down at the two hoods. From his vantage point they could not see him, nor could they hear him as the sounds of their hurried footsteps and thoughts of their impending criminal act drowned out all sounds real or imagined. Bat-Man swung above them watching, waiting for what he knew was coming. True to his instincts, the two men settle on a victim. The middle-aged man had no idea that he was about to be robbed. Then again, the two thugs had no idea they were going to be beaten… badly.
“Hey, buddy.” One of the criminals said. The middle-aged man turned around. His eyes went immediately to the gun the man was holding. The two gangsters smiled, they loved the fear in the marks eyes. “You know what this is. Give us your money.” The victim’s name was Larry Wright. His friends call him “Mr. Right” with an “R.” That’s because he is so right wing and so conservative. Mr. Right has a lot of friends, but too bad for him none of his friends were there to help him. As if they would. No, he was alone… or so he thought.
“Did you not hear me?” The man with the gun shouted. “Give us your money!” Mr. Right could not move. He could not understand why he could not move or speak. He was frozen. Why could he not simply hand the man his wallet? Was he scared? How could that be? He was Mr. Right he was the man who speaks out he was not scared of anything.
The man with the gun yelled as he walked towards Mr. Right with the gun leveled between the frozen man’s eyes. “Hey. Faggot! I’m taking to you.”
Somehow, Mr. Right found his voice. “I’m not a faggot.”
Without a sound, Bat-Man dropped onto the two thugs. With one swift move he disarmed the gunman with his Batarang while kicking the other man with a roundhouse that almost took his head off. The disarmed gunman launched himself at Bat-Man. Bat-Man smiled as he drove his right fist into the gunman’s face and, immediately, his left fist into his stomach. The force of one blow bent the man over the other stood him upright again.
Bat-Man placed his right leg behind the mugger and a right hook tripped him over his leg. He landed hard on the pavement. Mr. Right watched the entire thing from a corner, coming out only when Bat-Man had secured the two men with Bat-rope.
Bat-Man did not look at Mr. Right when he said. “You’re not gay.” “Pardon?” Mr. Right said in response to Bat-Man’s strange comment. Now staring right at Mr. Right, Bat-Man repeated “You’re not gay. You said you are not a faggot, you meant to say. You’re not gay.”
“What difference does it make?” Mr. Right said, with anger in his voice.
Bat-Man looked at Mr. Right for a long moment. “The same difference as me not showing up here. To me and the rest of the world you being mugged or killed would mean nothing, but to you it would have made a great deal of difference.”
Bat-Man looked at Mr. Right, who said nothing. A few moments later he drifted into the shadows leaving Mr. Right alone. Alone until he got home to his gated community and continued to try his best to impose his will on others, because that’s what the Right does.
I’m not gay. I have no desire to be with a man. There is not a single thing I can think of that would excite me about seeing another man butt naked. Hell, when I saw Brokeback Mountain I was a wee uneasy during the love scenes. The thought of two men “doing it” is a sure way to get me out of the mood.
I went to The High School Of Art & Design, the greatest high school in the world. The school is in midtown Manhattan and every year we had a “field day.” The entire school went to Central Park and just hung out. I was to meet some friends at the Central Park Zoo but I got lost (Central Park is HUGE and Stevie Wonder has a better sense of direction than me) and ended up in a part of the park called “The Ramble.” It was June and as I walked I noticed that there were a lot of people on the field sunbathing. Then I noticed that it was ALL men. Most of these guys were in bathing suits and oiled up.
I then realized that I was in the middle of hundreds of gay men. Gay men who all seemed to me to be looking at my 17 year old tight ass. That’s an important point. I have a great ass. I mean great. I also lived in the hood and gay meant “faggot,” so I was in fight mode.
I knew some cool gay guys from School, but this was not school and I was alone in the midst of what my brain was telling me was Penis Town. I had to get out of there but I didn’t know where to go. I looked left, right, east, west everywhere and I could not figure out where to go. I started to get really frustrated because being lost is a real big deal to me. I HATE BEING LOST. How bad is my sense of direction? I once looked for my car for three hours. I had parked it the night before… at my apartment complex. Thatbad.
“You need some help?” The voice was from a gay black guy who was wearing a Speedo – a TIGHT Speedo – and he had more oil on him than Exxon. He also had a superhero body; I mean this guy was cut. I had never seen a body like this except in muscle magazines.
He was cute, too.
None of this helped my over active imagination. I’m now thinking that I was about to be gang raped out in the open by Black Oedipus and his boys.
“You need some help?” He asked again. I managed to say in my hard tone of voice “I’m looking for the Zoo.” He said; “Oh that’s easy.” He told me where to go and I started to leave then he asked me “You want a soda?” Hey, it was June in New York City, it was really hot. I mean HOT. I thought about it and I said “Sure.” He went into a cooler and produced an ice-cold coke. “Thanks,” I said and flipped opened the tab. “My name is Raymond.” He told me. I wanted to say My name’s Mad Dog the Gay Guy Killer. But I said; “ I’m Michael.” “Have a seat Mike, we won’t bite.”
This, I now realize, was a defining moment in my life. Three women raised me. Two of them met with violent death. Because of this, my mother told be there are much more important things in life than prejudice. So now was a time to decide what kind of man I would be. Would I be just another “hater” or would I do the right thing.
I sat down. I wanted to get to know this guy and I admit I was curious about the gay thing… and he had ice-cold soda!
Raymond, Brendon and Philip were the three guys I ended hanging with. Brendon and Raymond were huge Neal Adams fans and we had a light-hearted debate about who was better, Adams or Kirby. I took Kirby… duh. Gay guys like comics, who knew?
I had a great time with these guys they were just like any new friends. So great was the time I was having I was lying on my back when I looked up to see the guys I was to meet looking down at me.
“So Mike, why did you not tell us your were gay?” My friend Tony Tutt asked with a stupid smile on his face. Raymond answered by telling Tony “Because you have a flat ass.” That broke up everybody. So there we were three straight guys from the hood hanging out with a bunch of gay guys in the middle of Central Park. They turned out to just be real cool gay guys. We also never did get to the zoo; we were having way too much fun.
These gay men turned out to be just real cool guys. Just regular people.
Regular people. No different than you or me. No different at all.
So why in the hell should I or anyone else want to stop some regular people from being together in a marriage?
What is with “The Right” having problems with two consenting adults wanting to be married? This is a moral issue, not a political issue. If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times…
YOU CANNOT REGULATE MORALITY!
Now, to that God argument, I have two words for you: FREE WILL.
It is not my place or your place or anyone’s place to tell others how to live. Most gay people I know are decent people who are employed, pay taxes and contribute to this country in all sorts of productive ways. In other words, they are NOT a drain on society. Now I can point to more than a few groups of people whoare a drain on society but we let them get married. Hell, I can write a book on all the stupid ass people who we let get married. If you are a mass murderer and in jail for the rest of your life the state will let you get married.
What? So if Charles Manson with his crazy anti-social behavior, a man who clearly has no worth on this planet wants to get married we would let him, and we would pay for it.
That is just freaking NUTS! But we do it. I hear that Scott Peterson gets dozens of marriage proposals from women. We would allow some CRAZY BITCH get married to a man who killed his own wife and unborn child.
If you are one of those women who asked Scott Peterson to marry you, I apologize. I should not have called you a crazy bitch.
You are a STUPID ASS CRAZY BITCH.
I’m truly sorry to all the crazy bitches out there (Hillary supporters who will now vote for McCain thus ending your right to choose what you do with your bodies when he appoints the next two or three supreme court justices) for grouping you with those stupid ass crazy bitches that want to marry a convicted murderer.
If we let CLEARLY crazy people get married, then I can’t see why we can’t let clearly SANE people get married. Oh, do you think that gay people ARE crazy? Then let them get married, genius. You already let crazy people get married! YOU don’t have to go to the wedding, and I’m fairly certain you won’t be invited. So if you want, you can stay at home and play with your penis all by yourself while you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Now, there’s a Dick for you.
Hey, if you don’t think men should be with men or women with women then I respect that. I respect all points of view. I love bacon and have a few Jewish and Muslim friends who don’t eat pork. Fine. I do love me some pork. You know what they do when we go out to diner? They don’t order pork, that’s what. They also don’t tell me what to eat, they don’t care, and even if they did care they keep it to themselves and mind their damn business. YOU have NO right to tell anyone how to live his or her life. What makes anyone think they can tell anyone else how to live?
What are we missionaries, and gay people are some savage group that needs to march to the beat of ourdrum? How would you like it if I came to your home and told you whom to love or worst told you with a law that your love was illegal?
Let’s say you meet a gay man named Richard and he saves your life. What right do you have to tell Richard how to live the life he lives after he just saved yours? Far fetched? Not really, there are thousands of gay people who save lives everyday as policeman or women, paramedics, doctors, fire fighters, soldiers, etc.
So Mr. and Mrs. Right, you don’t know if a gay man or woman just saved your life.
You don’t know.
You don’t know Richard.
You don’t know Dick.
Hollywood media mogul and comics creator/artist Michael Davis appears here every Friday on ComicMix.
You had me right up until "I'm not gay. I have no desire to be with a man." :)I kid, I kid!That was a great little story at the end about meeting these guys in the park and I loved the "flat ass" joke your new friend made.
"What are we missionaries"Well, usually, but, there's the occasional time I…oh, sorry…There's a good number of people on the anti-side of the argument that are just plain anti-gay. If you asked if there should be a brand of lemonade that catered to gays, they'd say no. But a lot of people are just used to the definition of "marriage" as a man and a woman, and changing that just rankles. I've made the analogy before – it's the same reaction if a female ruler of a country asked to be called "King" – the reaction is That's Not What The Word Means.Until the new state-sanctioned marriages are recognized nationwide, I forsee a number of unpleasant situations and a lot of loopholes crawled through. I expect to hear about a case of a gay married couple travelling outside their state, getting into an accident, and one not being able to sign the approval of medical treatment for the other. OTOH, I also expect to hear about a couple getting a divorce, and one claiming that the marriage was done in another state, and since THIS state doesn't recognize it, they shouldn't have to pay alimony at all. Until that happens, whether they call them civil unions, same-sex marriages, or just plain marriages, they're just lip service, and a way to increase tourism. If a particular state doesn't want to perform the ceremony, that's up to them, but making them hold only limited jurisdiction is just plain dangerous.
An acquaintance once said that if he were God, there's be a strain of AIDS that would be spread easily but would only effect homophobes.It would be cureable, though.The cure would involve vigourous young black men…
Maybe you can't regulate morality. But you can try. And there are lots of moral reasons and practical reasons for the government to encourage people to marry. Reasons that go beyond procreation. We don't regulate procreation. We don't insist that every married couple try to have kids. We don't do what China does and limit the number of children a couple can have.Married people tend to live longer. There is a built in support system in a marriage. You don't have you hire somebody to bring you chicken soup when you're sick in bed. Shared expenses and sometimes double-incomes makes good economic sense. Monogamy is a good way of preventing the spread of certain social diseases, one of which (although treatable) is still deadly and incurable.I believe in the conservative values of monogamy. I believe in the conservative value (and romantic notion) of trying to make a life-long commitment to have, hold, respect and honor in sickness and in health. I think that this commitment is not just good for ME personally. I think that this commitment is good for society as a whole. So I see nothing wrong in society recognizing that and extending to my partner and me certain benefits, like shared medical insurance. Hey, in the end, I think it's good for the insurance companies knowing that I have somebody else in my life working to maintain my health for FREE!Marriage is a CONSERVATIVE VALUE. I am MORALLY opposed to random and anonymous sex and see nothing wrong with the government writing laws trying to discourage it. For instance laws that criminalize prostitution and laws that promote and service marriage as an ideal are perfectly fine by my book.That is why I can't fathom why CONSERVATIVE people would not want to extend the ideal of marriage to homosexuals. If it makes sense (from a public health and moral standpoint) to encourage long-term, monogamous relationships, why would we want to discourage a small but still significant portion of the population from having those relationships.But … but … but … GAY people will want to adopt children! If we ALLOW gayness, our children will become gay! Yes, gay couples might want to adopt. And we try to find homes that are an ethnic or cultural match for children, we try to place black kids with black families and we try to place Jewish kids in Jewish families. We give preference to certain couples over other couples. In the end it would be wrong to deny a little Jewish kid a loving home just because a gentile family could be found to love and raise them, but a suitable Jewish family couldn't. Or vice versa. In the same way, I think heterosexual couples should be given preference when placing adopted children. Because we live in a mainly heterosexual society and children are generally born from heterosexual relationships. But, that does not mean I would DENY a child a loving home, just because a gay couple could be found to love and raise them, but a suitable straight couple couldn't. Frankly we have too many children in foster care, looking for loving families. There are more children in need of adoption in the world than loving homes ready to take them. It makes no sense to deny gay families the right to love and raise children. To some people, I might be speaking double talk. I want to extend equal rights to gay couples, while still maintaining that there are differences between gay and straight couples. To some I have declared that all are equal but some are more equal than others. Maybe my logic is flawed. I can live with that.Now, I don't think society will see an increase in homosexuality or homosexual activity if gay couples are allowed to be recognized and celebrated formally with marriage. I don't think gay couples who adopt kids can turn those kids gay. You can walk into and out of a gay bar and not turn gay. You can spend the day in the park surrounded by gay men and still feel uneasy at the thought of passionately kissing somebody of the same sex.Frankly, I think allowing gay marriage will decrease homosexual activity. Maybe it's counter intuitive. But think about it. If society denies your gayness and you are gay, the only way you have to assert who you ARE is by having sex. It's an act of rebellion. And it's a way or preserving your very nature. Society's repression of gayness and committed gay relationships has led to dangerous stuff like random, anonymous sex from pick up bars, in public restrooms or in public parks. It's a cruising culture. It's icky. It's dangerous and icky. And yes, heterosexual cruising is just as dangerous and icky.This is a very conservative viewpoint. But, I think sex implies or should imply a level of commitment from both partners. I don't think sex is just some random, biological imperative like eating. Having sex with someone should mean more than just sharing a sandwich. I don't think that you can legislate that sex outside of marriage should be illegal. You could try, many have, but it's not practical. And frankly, that's an invasion of privacy. But I do think that sex should imply a level of commitment that could at least potentially lead towards marriage. Sex should be seen a serious deal, not just random bodies in motion. Society should encourage people to take sex seriously. Society should encourage long term, stable relationships.If gay couples are encouraged to view sex as potentially leading toward marriage, that there is an implied commitment to sex, I think you will see a decline in random and anonymous sex. If you make sexual preference LESS important as a defining characteristic of who you are and what you are legally allowed to do, then you don't force people who are gay to reassert themselves and their gayness by just having SEX. Sex will mean something more if it actually CAN mean something more.Finally, recognizing gay marriage removes some of the stigma of being gay. And there is still too much stigma, misunderstanding and hatred, both subtle and institutional against gays in our society already. It's time we remove this one institutional bias against homosexuals and allowed loving gay couples the chance to celebrate that publicly with marriage.Rock on in peace.
"We don't do what China does and limit the number of children a couple can have."Why not? The fact of the matter is, we have no energy shortage. We have no food shortage. We have no clean water shortage. We have no problem with greenhouse gases and pollution and emissions. We have no spread of disease problem. If every automobile in the world were to instantly become a hybrid, our long-term situation would not improve.We have a population problem. Quite clearly, this planet cannot sustain six and one-half billion people; we added that last 500,000 in the past six years. It's too late for zero population growth. We can stop supporting people after a certain age (the Logan's Run solution) and we can stop fertility clinics and we can stop supporting cancer patients and we can ban organ transplants and other live-prolonging procedures that, when they were first conceived, were usually defined as "playing god." Or we can regulate the number of live births until we get the population under control — and we keep the population under control.Or we can starve and suffocate and pollute ourselves to death. Which is what we're doing. The planet will survive, and so will cockroaches and probably Keith Richards. But the human race and our babies will not.
I just read that the population will hit 7 billion by 2012 or so. And that India will soon have more people than China.China limits the number of children because THEY realize their population is too big.
Mike, I agree. We are overpopulated, we are overpopulating even more. But … can a democracy find the will to legislate the number of babies a family can have? The government MIGHT be able to provide incentives. I can see having a diminishing return on the tax credits families get after the first one or two children. But you would have to "grandfather in" all the children currently living until they reach the age of majority. You might be able to make vasectomies 100% tax deductible. But a country that can legislate one child per married couple and none for single mothers would be by definition a totalitarian regime.By the way, I have four daughters. I'm glad I don't have to select which two's names will go into the "Harvest Day Lottery." I wasn't trying to say that "America is better than China." I was trying to say that America doesn't care either way how fertile a married couple is, so the argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married because gay people can't procreate is specious.
Yeah, I don't exactly foresee a time when parents are going to have to pick and choose. Or even choose between twins.However, even if we do take all the outrageous steps I suggested above — close fertility clinics, stop supporting cancer patients, ban organ transplants and similar procedures — we're still going to have this massive overpopulation problem and it's still going to grow like hell. It's not a matter of making difficult choices, it's a matter of simple math.And, hey, I'm willing to say that America is better than China. Compare the pollution in our largest city to that of theirs. And we have more respect for copyrights. And we're more likely to have a government that believes in its constitution, hopefully, some day soon.
Michael,I admire the tenor of your article.I question some of the stereotypes.All gay men are not speedo- wearing, buff bodied, GQ catalog models. I know you're not asserting that but always seems to be the image that folks paint first. Just like the drag queen the TV news show at every Gay Pride parade. We all come in may shapes, sizes and genders.The thing I find most ironic is that when it comes to denying anyone else what I consider civil rights as a person, if you are of any other persuasion (african america, asian, etc) or of any gender (male or female) it has become taboo in society to deny those people/persons anything. The harassment/fair treatment web training I took just today at my job makes it clear. It also states sexual orientation is covered under that umbrella but witnessing what happened to one of our art directors about a year ago, I don't believe it. It's like corporate 'don't ask don't tell'. Just someone please tell me I don't have any rights as an American and I'll move to Canada.The thing I find saddest is that most folks don't feel one bit guilty about trying to legislate what to a certain degree what I consider my civil rights. Try doing that to a person of color or a certain race to ANYONE else today.The weird thing is that compared to my heterosexual counterparts I'm not ANY of the things they stigmatize. My partner and I have been together over 20 years. A figure that beats the CRAP out of the 50% married divorce rate. But I'm a dirty faggot to bigoted heterosexuals who probably have at least one failed marriage.No, Bill and I haven't discussed getting married. We consider the house, the dog and all our stuff commitment enough. We wear wedding bands but because of the commitment we made to each other, it's our symbol.I'm just saddened by the demonization of two people who want nothing other than to love each other.I don't flaunt but no threatened bigot is going to force me back in the closet. We live in a largely blue collar neighborhood and we know all our neighbors and party, live and die together. We're members of an organization that supports the local little league teams and give a hell of a Christmas party that I helped chair. Every kid got what they wanted and it gave me a great feeling. God knows I love to buy toys. If most people could see this cohabitation it might melt their stone cold hearts a tad.Shit, I thought this was America.Guess I was wrong,
"The thing I find saddest is that most folks don't feel one bit guilty about trying to legislate what to a certain degree what I consider my civil rights. Try doing that to a person of color or a certain race to ANYONE else today."I appreciate what you're saying, Rick. I'd like to point out that the last law prohibiting miscegenation wasn't repealed until 2000 – that would be Alabama, which held out two years longer than South Carolina. Even then, the Alabama repeal only managed to attract 59% of the vote.That was in 2000. Eight years ago. In the land of the free, the home of the brave.Bollocks.
Rick,The 'speedo' was what the guy was wearing. And he did have the best body of any human being I had ever seen. I was not trying brand a stereotype this is what he had on. BUT-to your point I could have pointed out that the other two guys were in shorts and a regular bathing suit. So with that in mind I can clearly see your point. Thanks for your other insights it was a great post.
Michael,Sorry.Deeply personal subject and sometimes I overreact.
Rick,No apologies necessary, I took no offense. I know a thing or eight about overreacting and trust me you were far from it.
Peace.
Marital law, we'll recall, was set up by men to regulate the disposition of their property and chattel, including their wives and children. Down with all that. The sex/morality business is a silly overlay that the middle classes worry about instead of doing something productive. The parenthetical classes aren't so troubled, q.v. Mr. Doolittle's famous speech on the matter in Pygmalion/My Fair Lady.
Heterosexual monogamy doesn't work for everybody, but that's not what marriage is about in the long term. It's about sharing day-to-day life, with all the petty annoyances and life-changing joys. Every dyad is different, and every dyad should get to make their own rules about stuff like sex and money and chores. The state gets the benefit of stable households, and we each get to live the lives that work for us.Those who want to get their church involved are welcome to do so, but please leave the rest of us alone.
Hey baby,How are things going.The first couple lines of your post remind me of Henry Fonda's speech to his teenage daughter about what love is in 'Yours Mine and Ours'.Kissnoise.
I agree, sex is only a small component in what marriage is about. But it's the only real difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. If we want to extend marriage benefits to homosexuals we need to show how the arguments against that are generally specious, based more on prejudice and fear than fact. And we have to show how homosexual marriage will benefit society. As far as Mike is concerned, the fact that homosexual couples have a harder time procreating, that is a benefit of homosexual marriage, in that it places less of a burden on our overpopulated planet!Monogamy is definitely an ideal that is promoted by marriage. Sexual affairs are certainly seen as grounds for divorce. Medical Doctors and psychologists can give many reasons why long term monogamous relationships are generally healthier. I see this as a good argument in extending marriage to include homosexuals. But, every dyad is different, and I see it as an invasion of privacy for the government to tell married couples exactly how they should run their bedrooms. Beyond laws forbidding sex with children, incest, bigamy (pluralism, meaning multiple spouses not multiple partners) or prostitution, most other stuff is fair game in my book.After we recognize the rights of homosexuals to form legally recognized and formalized dyads (to marry), should we be willing to extend that benefit to other couples? What about close friends that live together but have no romantic or sexual interest in each other? Should they be allowed to "marry" and get the legal benefits that come from that or will we need to have proof that there is a sexual bond? Do Felix and Oscar have to share a bedroom before Felix can get on Oscar's health insurance? What about family members that live together and don't have a sexual relationship? I don't think we are willing to open the doors on incestuous marriage, but are we willing to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to say "Spinster Sisters" who live together? Should sisters be allowed to adopt a child together?