I see where you both are coming from, but sorry, you both are WRONG!

I have to say the take on the cultural appropriation of black male slang by and the discussion that followed was so ODD.  It just shows the rift that exists between the black heterosexual and black LGBTs over such simple issues.

Anyways, black LGBT author and blogger, Rashid Darden, wrote on his own personal blog, Dopalicious District, how he is perped by the usage of "black gay male slang" by black heterosexual females in everyday life and on certain TV shows. ***COUGH*** The Real Housewives of Atlanta & Married to Medicine ***COUGH***

This week’s Real Housewives of Atlanta was quite eventful, and other blogs will give you a proper recap.  For me, seeing Cynthia Bailey give Mynique Smith an “education” in gay black slang made me uncomfortable.

I am a black gay man and for years I’ve seen our culture and language appropriated by white people and by women.  On one hand, I can’t be too mad because that’s just the way culture and language works.  On the other hand, stop stealing our shit.

Darden expresses how he feels that many black heterosexual females have stolen the lingo of black gay men for their usage, but many of them are quite homophobic.

On the flipside, the blog post wind up becoming discussion of the popular black female lifestyle blog, Madame Noire, where columnist, Charling Ball, posted an extrapolated take/rebuttal on the topic.  Meanwhile, the commentator comes out on both sites (mostly black females) antagonizing Darden and other black gay males for feeling that slang/lingo was their originally.  As a matter of fact, many posters on the Madame Noire site kept refuting this about black LGBT culture:

cheekee baby: Ummmm Gay black men have been fashioning themselves after black women for ages. I mean really they are walking around with purses and high heels meant for women. Hello! Too many act like sassy caricatures of black women. So he clearly needs to get over himself.

Nikia D-Shiznit: So, gay black men walk around looking and dressing like women, behaving in ways that are feminine or what they think women do.... But their language is being misappropriated? I cry why I see a limp wristed man in a dress and high heels saying "hheeeyyyy."

While others went to the usual attacks of saying this about black gay males:

lockstress: So ya'll can borrow and wear our panties but I can't say hunty??? Boo...get a cramp and complain for REAL!

Chaz : Why did this writer even take the time out to write this article? He is talking about black females using words that supposedly black gay men came up with? LOL. Wow. You don't see us black females going around talking about how much gay men wanna be women. How they go around calling themselves "girl" , wearing eyelashes, make up, weave, they get butt implants, breast implants... must I go on?

Now, I'm not here for homoantagonism nor am I here for misogyny, but this is some bullshit...

This is where I feel both are wrong because 1) Yes, many black LGBTs have taken their behaviors, manners, etc. from older black women like their grandmother, aunts, mothers, etc. so it isn't for black males to claim originally, but 2) The terminology "read" isn't from black female culture at all because that was popularized by the NYC drag queens popularized by the documentary "Paris Is Burning" and finally 3) Yes, there are some asinine black heterosexual and homoantagonist bisexual females that ridicule black gay/bisexual/transgendered males will use that particular lingo and hypocritically hate on, express strong dislike, or possess hatred for that aforementioned group.

It is not my place to take sides on this subject because my last point is poignant about the whole topic. Additionally, there is not excuse for black heterosexuals regardless of gender to possess homophobic bias or homophobia towards black LGBTs when we are all in the same boat together in this seemingly anti-black Western society.  This has to cease if we are to push forward as a culture.  Attacking black LGBTs is as unbecoming of black folks as attacking mixed raced/biracial individuals for only having 1 black parent because they don't possess 2 black parents.  Just like black LGBTs didn't ask to be born with feelings of sexual attraction towards the same gender, both genders, or gender dysmorphia about themselves is the same as those mixed race or biracial individuals being born to parents with 2 different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

You can tell when some splaboos are miserable souls

Well, pardon the happy couple for being happy.  Back in September, Nathanael Gay and Robert Brown decided to wed at the Griffin Gate Marriott resort in Lexington (Kentucky).  They even had friends, family, and even fellow line brothers (LBs) of Nathanael's fraternity (Kappa Alpha Psi) in attendance.

Meanwhile, I swear some splaboos are always on the beat being assholes towards black LGBTs that found happiness.  The trolls at Bossip always on their jobs of being the "typical gossiping yet judgmental homophobes".  I have to give Clutch magazine credit for being quite pragmatic and optimistic because these men decided to be open and comfortable about themselves.

Others including Rod McCullom are reporting that the Twitter-verse was going crazy a couple of days ago with idiots making homophobic notions about the happy couple.  I swear it seems like some members of folk would rather somebody be bitter and fucked up like them than happy.  Ignorance running-a-mok...

Some random thoughts (and a little ranting)...

What is with black folks and the indoctrination of self-deprecation and self-defeating mentality on life itself.  I speak on this because when I step outside of my very tight knit circle of friends (and when I mean tight I mean less than 5 people), I see so much of this.  I only surround myself on a personal-level with positive individuals that have much to offer in life other than the same old crap I see in the world itself, negativity.  It's a damn shame that as a group black people will shift towards this "holier than thou" disposition or "leave it all to Jesus" mentality when at the end of the day it's clearly a personal issue of psychological dissonance.

There was one person in my life, that I used to have long time ago that fronted like he was pragmatic, but his deep seated psychological issues seeped to the surface and they became this overtly negative and arrogant individual.  It was awful seeing somebody of so much potential to be a very productive member of society devolve into this self-defeating and stagnant soul with an arrogant chip on their should.  I had to remove them from my life by choice because they wen't providing anything of substance to myself (rather taking).

On to more related issues, I read this evening the blog, Black Gay Men's Blog, and its topic discussion on same-sex unions, i.e. "gay marriage" amongst black males.  It seemed that even though much growth has occurred in the past several decades, many have fully embraced this internal self-deprecating and bigoted views about unions and long-term relationships.  I've had my missteps but I also realize that if you embrace negativity then you wind up more miserable than you were beforehand.  The notion another individual would allow their peers, environment, sometimes even media and stereotypes affirm whom they are then it shows how weak-minded they are as individuals.  I refuse to allow anyone define me as a person, I know I'm far from perfect but anyone with half a brain and an ounce of common sense knows themselves well enough to not allow others to make them insecure.

Honestly, I believe it is the root of the self-destructive behavior that so many black SGL/gay/bisexual men partake in such as risky behaviors like unprotected sex, drug use, and obsession with unrealistic standards for others and sometimes themselves with their body image.

It's funny I've been writing this blog for nearly 2 years, but the truth hurts whether it about whites, blacks, LGBT/SGLs, or individuals.

Rant over.

Why I am not surprised or shocked by the events of yesterday in Tucson...

It's very tragic and disheartening about the events that led up to the 6 causalities including U.S. District Court of Arizona judge John Rolls, 11 injured including Arizona's 8th congressional district representative, Gabrielle Gifford in the Tucson area.

I can tell you why because we live in a society where everyone wants to pigeon-hole others in categories thus making us a society of the proverbial, "label whores".  It seen it daily on blogs, forums across the internet on subtle things from politics to entertainment.  Case and point, on one of my frequent posting sites, Left in Alabama, there are a number of individuals whom I consider just plain divisive and destructive to anything because they can't generate a coherent or logical discussion about anything.  I've pointed this out numerous times in the past including the members like RedEye, Gradyw/Martin Weinrib, Dale Jackson among others that constantly bring nothing to the table other than acrimony.  Anytime I've gotten into a discussion with them they try to run the gambit of tricks and even attempt to go for the jugular, but in the end wind up looking like an idiot because I've proven time and time what they are foolish.  I don't blame the administration there for the issues, but some of the individual are just ridiculous.

Other sites like Jack & Jill Politics, there are posters whom will do nothing but denigrate or flat out insult posters whom might not agree with their views like CPL/Christian Progressive Liberal (the irony of that name and her actions).  I remember very vividly when I decided to engage in the discussion of the candidacy of Artur Davis in the Alabama's gubernatorial race, CPL wanted to be very nasty and even attempt to insult me because I corrected their misinformation and half-truths.  It's just become a regular old circus these days on some of these sites.

Also on Rod 2.0 and Pam's House Blend, these two LGBT oriented (and black issues-leaning) blogs have shown that there are some posters (in Rod 2.0.'s case even Rod McCullom himself) who will attack those whom doesn't agree with practically everything that said on that site.

These examples are just a sample of what I see as a breakdown of civility in our society and that's just on the internet, but its hiding under the surface (and behind a computer screen).  What's more disturbing is what is hiding below the surface in everyday life with individuals we encounter in our daily lives.  Ironically, these sites suppose to be places of openness of those whom feel "left out" in many ways.

The overzealous nature of partisanship on both sides of the aisle and then the ideological battle of placing everybody in "categories" of being either "liberal" or "conservative".  Some people are just "moderate" on most political issues or "socially progressive" but hold reservations on other things thus not having them fit in any particular political mode and that's their prerogative as American citizens.  However, there are those on both sides of the ideological extremes that wants to war with those because of those differences.  Until we learn that there will always be those in the middle and stop trying to wage this "us versus them" type of mindset, don't be surprise if other more heinous things occur.   It's one of the constant reasons why I stay annoyed by some because they want others to "fall in line" of group-thinking or be royal asses just for the hell of it with no coherent or logical backing to their stances.  

Seriously, people need to get a grip and realize the consequences of their thoughts and divisive rhetoric.  

(h/t to Tucson's local newspaper, Arizona Daily Star for the links to the story)

Twisted irony of this being a topic: "The Princess Boy"

Just last week I was having a conversation with an older black, closeted homosexual guy about this very topic.  He said one of the main reasons why he would never live in Atlanta was because of the overt over acceptance of  homosexual behaviors and in his words "dudes who dress in female clothing".  I responded saying, "I don't worry about what others do because that is their lives and I will live mine as I see fit.".  Now this guy is from Chicago originally, where he rear and lived until a couple years ago before relocating with his daughter to Birmingham for a job.  It's interesting that he mentioned that he thinks that "guys should exhibit any type of non-conforming behavior" yet he is a homosexual (another non-conforming behavior) and deeply closeted (also a "Praise Team" director at his church in other words he is a "church queen").

I digress, the story about Dyson Kilodavis of Seattle and his non-conforming behavior of dressing in female attire.  The 5-year-old black boy likes to dress in dresses and even calls himself "princess boy".  He and his mother Cheryl Kilodavis were on the NBC Today show on Monday morning discussing this and a book his mother wrote about similar behavior in children.  Cheryl Kilodavis penned her book My Princess Boy in an effort to have these larger conversations about acceptance.  The black and mostly black LGBT blogospheres have been talking about this all week.  Now I heard about and saw the interview with the Kilodavis' on local NBC station, WVTM, on Monday, but was too tired to say much about it.  However, after seeing how the black blogosphere's responses have fallen in other of the 3 catogories: ambivalent, supportive, or against it.  (See Bossip, Lipstick Alley, Living Out Loud with Darian, Rod 2.0, Pam's House Blend, Miss Jia) The majority has been against it (no surprise).  As Dr. Sheri L. Parks of the University of Maryland, College Park said,  

"Religiosity permeates African-American daily life more than any other population," Parks said. "When you look at evangelical Protestants they are the most concerned about gender role development and sexual orientation.  African-Americans are very emotionally involved in black masculinity. Masculinity is very highly valued, that's why some people come down hard on this little boy whose not taking his rightful place."

It's a damn shame because identity is one thing as an adolescent that is very hard to figure out and discover as it is, but the additional pressures that blacks places on one another for "conforming behaviors" just makes it even harder for young black males and some females when it comes to these things.  Hence, why I give folk the side-eye half the time because as a "group" (when need to used for subjective discussion), we talk out of both sides of our necks.  We want acceptance as people as whole in Western society, but refuse to accept individual members for their differences especially in they involve not falling in line with socially acceptable behaviors of being hyper-masculinity in males.

(h/t to the Grio for the links)

Uh-oh, Chick-fil-A! The gay bloggers are about come after you!!!!!

Well, it didn't take long for me to hear about this, and the gay blogs to follow up with a pressure-cooker campaign to get them to drop their co-sponsorship with Pennsylvania Family Institute of "The Art of Marriage" on February 11th & 12th in the Harrisburg area and Reading in Pennsylvania.  Although the event isn't about being "anti-same-sex marriage", it speaks on biblical marriage and the support for it.  However, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, is the largest organization against LGBT rights in Pennsylvania.  So it's guilty by association because Chick-fil-A hasn't made it known they are overtly anti-LGBT rights.  Interestingly, they did sponsor Colorado-based Focus on Family and some golf tourney in Ohio led by Ohioan based group, which supports the usage of reparative therapy to change sexuality, which many experts equates to mental torture.  Official at Atlanta area-based Chick-fil-A hasn't made any official comments or stances on anything public involving LGBT rights.  (Maybe it has to do with them being based in the metropolitan area of one of the largest LGBT cities in the nation, so it could be chalked up to guilty by association.  On the other hand, they do close on Sundays for their employees can be with their families...  ***KANYE SHRUG***)

Well, like the Target fiasco, I'm going to remain ambivalent because I shop and eat at places that are cheap and offers quality products and services.  I'm on a fixed income while working on my Masters' degree, and don't eat out often anyways so this fiasco doesn't affect me.  However, it is interesting what's going to go down in the next few days.

UPDATE: Advocate, Towerload, Queerty, Change.org have swooped down on it.

But there's more!!!!

The blogosphere is a buzzing about Alabama Congressman and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Artur Davis' steadfast stance to vote against healthcare reform although he said it was needed.  His talking out of both sides of his mouth looks stupid and confusing on the surface, but he might have A POINT.  Now, I'm one who doesn't trying to psychologically analyze the mind of somebody as flip-flopping as Davis, but he does have a means to an end.  However, the empirical question to this whole situation is "Was the "no" vote really worth it?"

Here's my take, it might not be as serious as some people like Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0, who loves making cheap shots at Davis wherever possible but won't do the same to others while giving them Swiss cheese-like passes for their bullshit or the salon.com and the talking head brigade.  Alabama is a moderate-to-conservative state where there is more socially conservative whites that vote in drives over any other group of people.  Oh yeah for the record, although Alabama's 7th Congressional district is the most "Democratic-leaning" (as they allege only salon.com) in the state, doesn't equate to most "gay-friendly" (to Rod and the simpleton brigade).  This district is quite the place for Democrats, but the kind like that isn't progressive for nothing.  Mainly since most of the LGBT population in Greater Birmingham doesn't even live in Birmingham proper, which is the coextensive with most of this district's boundary in this region.  If you want to know who makes up this district, yeah they are black but they are socially conservative and not very gay-friendly at all (just see the Birmingham municipal elections for measure).   Honestly, I believe the dog-and-pony show outside his main Birmingham office last week and the statement by his primary Ron Sparks was more for show by some this state's scrupulously simply Democratic party.  You guys can have fun on the ignorance you're pedaling around the Internet about a place you don't know, so when somebody calls you out don't say I didn't say "I TOLD YA SO!"

Anyways, Davis is a politico, who shouldn't be taken that serious, and is stuck between a rock and a hard place in this bizarre state.  He knows he was taking a political gamble being as placing your entire stack of chips on the blackjack table for wager, but he might not lose after all.  The only people he has to ultimately answer to will be those who will actually go to the voting booth come November not the hearsayer, naysayer, or talking heads that lack the facts on the blogosphere.  IN OTHER WORDS, if you are black or non-white in Alabama and eligible to vote then get off your ass and do it if you want your voice hear.   However, IMO Davis, Pelosi, and Obama were all in on his "no" vote and he was doing to protect his ass from further ostracism coming from that aforementioned simple-minded group of majority white voters in Alabama.

OH WELL, I'M NOT LOSING ANY SLEEP OVER HIS VOTE BECAUSE THE SHIT STILL PASSED...

Well, I hope the losers are happy - 2 for the price of one weekend

On Friday, current sitting NY Governor and pretty much the only black governor that New York will probably ever see, David Patterson, announced on Friday afternoon that he wasn't going to run for re-election afterall.  This in turn gives the Democratic candidacy for governor to the nappy-headed ho and backhanded racist known as Andrew Cuomo.  Oh I hope Rod, Pam, etc. are happy that their "savior" for same-sex unions has been politically crucified because of collapsing political support and a "scandal" where his administration stepped into a domestic violence case involving close aide, David Johnson.  In related news, on Sunday via The New York Times, the black flip-flopper Harold Ford, Jr. said he wasn't going to run for the U.S. Senate on the Democratic ticket challenging the white female flip-flopper, Kirsten Gillibrand.  An additional coup for the fools to go ga-ga over since you've removed to blacks from the political scene for the price of one weekend!

Boy, this is perfect since the LGBT bloggers like Rod, Pam, etc. abandoned Patterson like Diaz said then for bonus they got rid of their "nemesis" Ford because he used to not be for full-fledge unions while as Tennessee Congressman.  Now Ford didn't walk away without making some parting shots as the idiots and asses in New York Democratic Party who pretty much didn't want him to run.

"The public is "nervous" and "clamoring for change" but "too few in the Democratic Party are really willing to break with orthodoxy" to solve problems. State Democrats, he said, "spent too much time this past year supporting a national partisan political agenda — and not enough time looking out for their own constituents."

You gotta give it up to whiners they will whine about everything, but when people put their neck out for them they are nowhere to be found...

A little reality check...

I was doing my usual blog stroll and came across this lovely post on Left in Alabama and boy was it quite a doozy!  Gotta give it up to the non-native, but person with Alabama connections calling it like he sees it.  However, he was only half-right because there is some major political strength behind Artur Davis' campaign here in Alabama.  The problem is only timing, which is going to play a major part in the gubernatorial election.

YAWN! Are we still at this

I'm still gathering evidence in between my professional work, but I'm absolutely convinced that some certain LGBT bloggers are trying their best to give a covert endorsement of the epic failure and flip-flopper Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) over the other flip-flopper (or is double-talker?) and recent NY transplant Harold Ford, Jr.  I say this is getting a little out of hand if you ask me, but will sit back and gather further evidence because it seems that their agenda.  However, I digress if you are going to be a "journalist" where does objectively lie in your reporting?

I give it up to V on his blog, on his reporting how Gillibrand's call for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" last week was futile because it was clearly she was grandstanding instead of standing up for LGBT/SGLs in the military.  He is way more objective about what is being said than most which why I respect his opinion and take on things. If we are going to talk about it then talk about (something my aforementioned LGBT blogger did), but some others want to "talk at" and then "say their bizarro endorsement" while claiming they're reporting it.

If you like her, good for you, but don't try to defame somebody because they have a fair chance of winning over your favorite.   Just say, you don't like nig---I mean black man over the white woman.  It just makes you look illogical and subjective when it come to debating and stances in the political arena...

RANT: I call it like I see it!

It's rather amusing what has been going on with the emotion-based, irrational diatribes of some people in the LGBT/SGL blogosphere about the whole "Democratic leadership" and "Obama administration" issue.  I've learned to just take an objective approach when it comes to stupidity or emotional, irrational convictions, and that is GET THE FUCK OVER IT.  If you spend 95% of your time complaining about those who don't agree with you, yet you get somebody like myself calling you out then guess what that just might be some evidence to validate what you were told. Then there is the curious case of some bloggers taking things personal when I did exactly that because, in my own opinion, I'm not here to make friends with anybody that doesn't share my objectivity on issues at all (in other words always gets bent all out of shape when somebody doesn't agree with you).  I can respect you, but when you take things very personal then that is all on you.  However, it just reinforces what David Kaufman said just last week about the some of the main LGBT/SGL bloggers and their egos on issues.  LMAO!  Yeah Rod, you are included in this bunch as well.

I can't help, but laugh at the fact that all of a sudden how so many of the constant whiners are eating crow after the State of the Union speech and actions behind the words of the Obama administration with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  The question is how long will the whiners be appeased before they start to whine again.  All I will say is this, if you force change overnight it usually have adverse results of what you wanted or intended. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

More talk, but little action

I've just about had it with my fellow LGBT/SGL bloggers on their criticism of President Obama and claiming that he is a "do-nothing" president when in reality there are bigger problems at hand than their selfish mindset.  The saying "can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind instantly after listening and reading for the past few months.  It's annoying and so obnoxious how they have spent their time whining, bitching, and moaning over nothing yet they seem to believe that these issues are precedent over the economy, healthcare, and jobs.  Fellow LGBT/SGL and blogger of color, David Kaufman, summed up with similar thought along with C.G. Shield of the Daily Athenaeum university newspaper of West Virginia University. 

The bitterness and vitriol filling LGBT attacks on the Dems must come to an end, replaced by a respectful and actionable solutions-based agenda. Most crucially, major LGBT institutions must learn from their previous mistakes and work to rectify them, rather than settling for sloppy repeats.....

This includes reckless LGBT leaders concerned more for their own bloated public images than the greater public good. Leaders like Mixner and AMERICAblog who would seem to truly want this White House to fail -- yet fail themselves to offer any sort of realistic back-up plan. Or even explain why.

He really digs into Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend who along with Queerty, Towerload, Ameriblog Gay, and Rod 2.0 has spent the better portion of 2009 always degrading the Obama administration while the economy has the front and center of public interest.  The often destructive sense of few will affect many, but hence why I don't have allegience to any group other than to myself because their nature of self-centeredness will prove more lethal to the cause than conductive. 

So Harold Ford Jr. has been a proponent all along for something...

I don't see this as a "flip-flop" persay more than I see as just an adjustment of platform with the district he would represent in Congress.  Hey, I'm a lot more pragmatic and realistic when it comes to politics than most of my fellow black bloggers that cover LGBT/SGL issues like Rod 2.0, Pam Spaulding, etc.  He said that he has always supported civil unions, which means that he wasn't against LGBT/SGL rights rather the definition of calling it "marriage" (where I personally stand as well because "marriage" is a religious institution).  Instead Ford said that he was for civil unions, which can be called "same-sex unions" as well.  So in my book, he is just equipping himself for the Democratic primary against Kirsten Gillibrand, who wasn't as progressive as she is now when she was still a U.S. House Representative.  Somethings have to be taken with a grain of salt and that is talking points from politicos when it comes to issues because words aren't what counts rather actions.  If Ford said he has always supported civil unions then that is fine in my book when in reality it seems to some would give Gillibrand a pass just because she did the exact same thing, but in more subtle way.  When it comes down to that, that's when I call foul and bias because some in the blogosphere will give a white woman a pass but comes down hard on a black man because he is a black man.  If you are going to criticize then criticize them both, which I am doing, don't play favorites and then try to whine when in reality my stance sounded more rationale and realistic...

UPDATE: What is so interesting and prejudice is how Empire State Pride chairman Alan Van Capelle said to Ben Smith of Politico: 

I know Harold Ford Jr. just arrived to New York, but as a native and lifelong resident, I know what New York values are, and I know a snake oil salesman when I see one. You simply can’t claim to be pro-equality if you’ve twice voted to enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.

While it may be tempting for Mr. Ford to compare himself to people like Sen. Chuck Schumer, the fact remains that Sen. Schumer — who did evolve on his position on marriage equality — has been a longtime supporter of several pieces of legislation that are very important to LGBT people and never supported the awful Federal Marriage Amendment. Harold Ford Jr. is no Chuck Schumer, and he is no Kirsten Gillibrand.

WOW, WOW, WOW!  So Mr. Capelle, you just single out how Ford doesn't compare to Senator Schumer, but you conveniently ignored how former President Clinton was for the DOMA and signed it, but didn't repent and reform until recently.  Ford like other Southern black politicos may have ambiguous or flat out change stance on LGBT/SGL issues but if somebody like Schumer, Clinton are given a pass.  Interesting, indeed. 

I'm also shaking my head at how Pam Spaulding along with Rod McCullom are going into fall out assault mode on Ford, yet he said made his platform clear.  It's like I said some will give others a pass, but antagonize others that are usually black to the end of all time even if they change their stances.  Why can't you just take him for whom he is now because if Gillibrand might be just a "wolf in sheep's clothing" as anybody else.  SMDH

Interesting....

Darian Aaron of Living Out Loud with Darian took time earlier this week to interview and take photographs with some of the cast of the Real Housewives of Atlanta.  It's good to see that some of them are supportive of same-sex unions such as Sheree Whitfield, Kandi Burress, and Lisa Wu-Hartwell were in attendance for the photo shoot by Adam Bouska and Jeff Parshley of the "NO H8" campaign.  They were doing a photoshoot in Atlanta to extend the campaign beyond California and Los Angeles. 

However, on Rod 2.0 the story was reported and some of the members have chosen to be trolls and assholes throwing shade at NeNe and Dwight Eubanks of the show inquiring why weren't they in attendance?  Now personally, I enjoy NeNe and Dwights foolishness and quick wit, but does it really matter if they were or weren't there?  Just because people don't show up doing something as simple as photoshoot doesn't mean they are against a cause.  You have some GLBTs that like to believe the world owns them something when in reality IT DOESN'T.  How are we not to know the lesser known members of the cast weren't just doing the photoshoot for more publicity for themselves?  I mean you can't always question the why and what about things as simple as this.  People need to get it together because throwing shade at one another isn't helping rather than further showing the sift in between some many on that are supports of equality for all.