"No Homo"- Blog by Peer Leader Marcos Garcilazo

I recently watched an organization's public service announcement that promoted condom use to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. I remember the gist of it, but as a matter of fact, the makers of the video lost me within four seconds.

The video had very little dialogue, but they used Lil' Wayne's "Lollipop" as the background music for their video. If you are not familiar with the song, click on the following link and pay very close attention to the lyrics.

Lollipop

Did you catch it? It's four seconds into the video/song. If you're not used to having gay slurs thrown in your direction you might have missed it. Heck, even if you are you might have missed it. If you did miss it, click the link again and really try and hear it.

Four seconds in, he says "no homo." The expression, if you are unaware, is used to clarify that under no conditions is any of the following to be interpreted as gay. The expression is very common on most social websites like Twitter and Facebook. The expression bases itself in the fear that anything - describing a shirt or even the weather - may be interpreted as the speaker being gay, and implying that there is something inherently wrong or offensive about being gay. Once again our culture has found a away to put down gay individuals everywhere constantly - first it was "that's gay" and now it's "no homo."

When I heard that in a video, they lost me. I wasn't listening because I was wondering "How could an organization perpetuate a negative phrase against such a vast part of the community when they're supposed to be educating them about condom usage?" Gay men tend to be at a higher risk for HIV/AIDS, so I struggle to understand why they would use a song that marginalizes gay people within the first four seconds.

There are more rap songs out there than I care to count, and some just as popular (if not more popular) than Lil' Wayne's song. Now, it is hard to miss it but if someone is used to being harassed for their sexual orientation, they won't miss it. If one is constantly demonized, when that demonization makes it into a video that's supposed to encourage safe sex, they're not going to hear the message. They'll hear the homophobic remark at the very beginning.

As I said earlier, gay men are at a higher risk of HIV/AIDS if protection isn't used, so it troubles me that one of the more at-risk target populations is being ignored. Stigma is a cause of risky sexual behavior, so it's important to remember what our language is doing to a community. I should hope that organizations will think very carefully when deciding what content to include, and in so doing they will ensure that their message is actually heard by those who would benefit from hearing it. With so many gay youth completing suicide in recent months, it should be obvious that we need to be more sensitive about language and the words we use.

What happens when a friend is diagnosed with mental illness? Guest Peer Leader Blog Post By Hannah Davis

Hannah Davis is the new Peer Outreach Coalition Intern. Hannah is studying Psychology at Sonoma State University. Her guest blogs will be featured weekly. Welcome, Hannah!

Many people wonder what it is like to have a mental disorder and how that changes a person’s life. While this is important, I am more interested in the many people who know a friend or family member that’s diagnosed and are entering the unknown territory of caregiver. According to the National Institute of Mental Health there are 26.2% of people aged 18 and over who “suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.” Seeing as one in four adults have mental disorders, the chances of knowing someone who is affected is a likely possibility. Because of these statistics, NAMI California, a group dedicated to educating the public about mental illness, lays out several of the typical feelings those helping mentally ill family members go through and ways to cope with this challenge.

There tends to be seven common emotions due to the added burden of caring for a mentally ill person. These emotions are guilt, embarrassment, confusion, anger, resentment, fear, and frustration. When I imagine the challenge of caring for someone who is mentally ill I associate with these emotions, all of which aren’t positive. If I feel this way by simply picturing these hardships then how much more stressful must it be for those who don’t imagine these situations, but are in them?

Guilt manifests because people blame themselves for what has happened and believe that somehow they could have taken control of the situation and stopped the mental illness from developing. Social stigmas about the mentally ill can cause embarrassment while confusion occurs when people have a hard time accepting that their loved one is mentally ill, what caused the disorder, and its impact on the affected individual. When family members think a patient isn’t really sick, yet merely looking for attention or excuses, they exhibit anger towards the ill individual. Resentment is where people feel pressured and burdened while caring for their family member. The people who normally feel this way are primary care givers that are closest to the mentally ill. Another normal response is fear that the family member will also be likely to get the illness. They may wonder if they are next. And lastly, the feelings of frustration occurs when caretakers feel they are unable to properly assist their loved one and therefore not helping them get better, which can also increase feelings of guilt. None of these negative feelings are helpful to any individual involved in the situation and should be change to a more positive outlook so there are no hard feelings between both parties involved.

In my opinion, it is vital that we try to get into the mindset of those in such a difficult position so we can understand what they are going through and learn how to help them. Thankfully there are ways that we can assist those who may feel burdened by caring for a friend or family member. They face an enormous challenge that includes little thanks for the help they provide, emotional heartbreak watching a loved one suffer, lots of time spent helping the mentally ill individual, and the rebellion against their help that they are likely to run into. This challenging time is when we as friends need to offer a helping hand; trying to care for someone shouldn’t be one person’s job.

Caregivers should try to reach out to others for emotional support, which can be as simple as talking about what is going on and getting feedback from others about treatment and behavioral issues. By discussing their concerns, fears, and thoughts people can create realistic expectations of recovery and maintain an objective perspective. Getting a break from care giving can reduce stress, and the use humor can help with the hardships of caring for those who can make the work difficult and depressing. Next time your friend needs to talk or asks for help, seriously think about the responsibility they are undergoing by caring for their mentally ill individual and ask yourself if you would want help and support. If the answer is yes, then do whatever you can to help to reduce that person’s burden.

As NAMI California says, “it is important to remember that mental illness is just that, an illness of the brain” and that “wrestling with the intricacies of mental health disorders is no easy feat.” It is important for those dealing with family members or friends afflicted with mental disorders to try to understand their feelings towards the ill person and how to change them to positive emotions, as well as know what resources are available during their struggle to help their mentally ill companion. Having a close circle of friends they can count on is also extremely helpful.

Remember that one day you could be in this position. Wouldn’t you want help and loving support during these troubling times?

"Equality: 1, Bigotry: 0." Guest blog post by Peer Leader Marcos Garcilazo

Yesterday was a historic day for LGBTQ rights in the state of California. Since members of the LGBTQ population are often at an increased risk of stress, anxiety, and depression due to discrimination, Marcos has graciously written this post on his thoughts about Prop 8, equality, and discrimination. Thanks Marcos!

Yesterday afternoon, I was one of the millions of people on Twitter who was furiously refreshing their feed hoping that the Fail Whale would not show up. The day before, the judge who had been presented with the case that would rule Proposition 8 (which banned gay marriage in California back in November 2008) was going to release his decision. I was overcome with the same feeling that I felt the night of November 2008 when Americans made history by electing the first African-American man to office: history would be made that day once again.

At 2PM PST, Twitter exploded (it really exploded) with the news: the Judge had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, meaning that people in favor of gay marriage had won this round. I have to admit that a huge grin adorned my face as I proudly updated my Facebook status with a link to the ruling and my own little comment - "Equality: 1, Bigotry: 0." I understand this is but the first step in what's surely going to be a marathon, but it's a step in what I believe to be the right direction.

As of yesterday, a very large part of the population got affirmation on a very deep level that there is hope for equality. America has a history of inequality and bigotry, sure, but we also have a history of people moving history along past such things, and yesterday Honorable Judge Vaughn Walker joined those people. His ruling, which is honestly one of the better reads of the summer (and I only read about a fifth of the whole document) very clearly asserts several things. First, his ruling upholds the notion that equality is not something we should be putting up for a vote. Equality in general is not a voter initiative idea - it is an ideal. Regardless of race, gender, economic status, sexual orientation, religion, or any other factor that may differentiate us from a larger group, when we stand in front of a judge or in front of a police officer, we expect that we will all be treated equally. This ruling asserts that Judge Walker heard no argument that was convincing enough to abolish that equality at the marriage license clerk's office.

The concept of equality is not new, but the fact that now we should be applying it to more people apparent is. If "marriage" continues to be something recognized by a government, which thereby grants certain legal benefits (e.g. hospital visits, tax breaks, etc) then marriage should be something every single American should be able to get. Throughout this whole debate opponents of gay marriage have brought up the religious interpretation of the word "marriage", and that's something that needs to be said: this debate is not about "religious marriage" - it is about the legal, government-recognized and government-benefited union between two people. In order for equality to be equality, it needs to be applied to everyone, not just to those the majority deems appropriate.

Second, this decision carried a deeper message for the greater queer community. This decision sent a loud and clear message that their relationships are just as valid and that their relationships carry the same intrinsic value as opposite-sex relationships. Through years of anti-gay messaging, it has been my experience that people do not carry the same level of respect for the word "partner" as they do for "husband" or "wife," and what this decision does is tell all those people that in fact there is no difference, that the love in a relationship is not dictated by the genders of the people in it.

Third, this decision was really heartening because it struck down discrimination, and as a "minority" discrimination is an issue. As I said, if people will discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, how can I know that it won't be because of their race the next day, or because they have an accent, or are of a certain religion? Discrimination is a disease as far as I'm concerned and to allow any kind of discrimination is a violation of the principle that our nation so often touts: that all men are created equal. If we are to uphold that notion, then we must do all that we can to make sure that every single person in this nation is an equal in the eyes of the law.

Again, this is not about the religious institution. This is about the legal marriage. Yesterday amongst the flurry of joy around this decision there was a lot of hate. Some people see this as an attack on tradition, and some see it as an attack on the will of the people. Appealing to tradition is one of the many techniques employed in arguments, and to that I say, just because we've been doing something in a particular manner for years doesn't mean we've been doing something right. As far as an attack on the will of the people, well, this is called a "minority rights issue" for a reason - this affects the minority, and the implication here is that simply because 52% of Californians have an issue with gay marriage we should embed discrimination into our state constitution. Minority rights would never advance if we waited for the majority to work through its concerns with any particular issue.

I hope that when this reaches the Supreme Court of the United States (and I have no doubt it will) I will see a repeat of yesterday. It is comforting to know that a community that so often has to deal with hatred finally gets a break, even if it's just a small one.

Sonoma County Mental Health Controversy: Lunatic Binge, anyone?

On Saturday I was strolling through downtown Sebastopol with a friend for high school. We were reliving our days at Analy High School and marveling at how much the town has changed since we graduated. As I was walking past the entrance of the Sebastopol Cookie Company, the following poster caught my eye....

I particularly was fascinated by the idea that bathrobes, pajamas, and straight jackets were encouraged. As much as I have always wanted an excuse to wear a straight jacket in public, I think it may be a little difficult to enjoy a diet coke with my arms strapped to my sides.

All sarcasm aside, this event caused quite a stir. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) released a statement that the event reinforced "stereotypes about people suffering serious ailments and should be cancelled." In the end, NAMI and the band Baby Seal Club were able to reach an agreement on the event. The evening of the show a one-person picket line marched out in front of Hopmonk Tavern in Sebastopol.

On the Baby Seal Club website, the band composed an open letter to NAMI. Here is an excerpt:

"To clarify, what we are presenting is akin to a cartoon using recognizable reference points elevated to illustrate the ludicrousness and absurdities of the stigmas attached to mental illnesses and their treatments. We seek to spoof the stigmas themselves, not to perpetuate them, and certainly not to insult those who suffer from a serious mental illness. We will let the attendees decide for themselves if we have succeeded."

In all honesty, I am a little confused at how an evening of straight jackets, bite-guards, and restraints (according to the band's website), along with calling the event the "Lunatic Binge," does not perpetuate the stigma of mental illness. I am happy that NAMI and the show organizers were able to make peace, but I wonder what, if any, harm was done by allowing this event to take place.

What do you think?

Can you be both homophobic and a good counselor?

Happy Monday! Let's talk about the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, among other things, that the government shall make no law that interferes with freedom of speech or expression of religion.

At Augusta State University in Georgia, graduate student Jennifer Keeton has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that her First Amendment rights have been violated. Jennifer claims that the school has threatened to expel her for refusing to complete workshops that conflict with her religious beliefs. She also alleges that Augusta State is trying to force her to change her beliefs.

So what exactly are Jennifer Keeton's beliefs? Jennifer believes that homosexuality is both immoral and a lifestyle choice. Jennifer's classmates have also reported that she believes in "conversion therapy" for homosexual clients. Jennifer is also enrolled in a counseling Master's program. Since counselors may counsel clients from very diverse backgrounds, it is important for counselors to be sensitive to issues concerning multiculturalism, including sexual orientation. The professors and staff have told Jennifer that it is important to acquire these skills in order to be an effective counselor. Jennifer has responded by saying that her belief system will not impact her ability to counsel gay and lesbian clients.

I have previously mentioned that I recently completed a Master's in Counseling program. One of the required courses was titled Cross-Cultural Awareness in Counseling. This was a required course. If I did not complete this course, I would not be eligible for graduation or my degree. My opinion (which aligns with Jennifer Keeton's professors) is that one cannot effectively counsel other individuals without some understanding about how to be sensitive to issues surrounding gender, race, religion, age, socio-econmoic status, and sexual orientation.

Earlier this month, two gay men in Atlanta were beaten and robbed at gunpoint. Not three hours from Augusta, it is not outside the realm of possibility that one of these men could make a counseling appointment with Jennifer Keeton. Would she show unconditional positive regard and empathy, or would she tell him that he was robbed because of a "lifestyle choice" and that he should seek conversion therapy?

It takes a tremendous amount of courage to seek counseling. Many individuals who desperately need mental health services never seek them because of the fear of stigma and prejudice from friends, family and co-workers. How would you feel about going to a counselor who believed that the way you are is immoral and wrong?