A few weeks ago I met a young man (in his mid 20’s maybe) that seemed intelligent, educated and tech savvy. He has a skill set that I thought might be useful on our upcoming “The Fall of the House of Usher” short film shoot in December. At the end of our brief, informal, friendly encounter (in a neutral work environment) I suggested he contact me and maybe we’ll work together. A few days later the first e-mail from him arrived (NOTE: All misspellings and typos are exactly as they were sent):
On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Hawk wrote:
I enjoyed workon with you and tour wife today. I look forward to workin wit your company in the future. This is our companies email so don’t hesitate to contact in regards to any future projects. Video production is one of our focuses but we have a variety of skills that are useful for filmakers. Be easy, ONE
Nice, right? I didn’t realize he had a “company” so I replied:
On Jul 29, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Nathan Wrann wrote:
Cool, we had a good time. Thanks for contacting me. What does your company do? Do you have a website?
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Hawk wrote:
Our website is under construction. We’re an entertainment company that specializes in audio and video production. We’ve also done some acting and modeling so as I said we could help out with different aspects of the industry. We look forward to workin wit your company. The only bias that we have is there is no racist or homosexual content we will participate in. Other than that we’re positive and willin ta work wit good people. Be easy, ONE.
That’s weird. A “bias that… there is no… homosexual content.” Really? I thought this might be a typo or maybe a miscommunication.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Nathan Wrann wrote:
Do you mean no homosexual or no homophobic (anti Gay) content?
His response yesterday:
On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Hawk wrote:
We are a positive company that promotes the natural laws of life and the universe. Men and women are made for each other to continue that cycle of life. As you may know, male and female counterparts are found throughout the universe to obtain the balance needed for existence. Heterosexual relations are the only relations that we support, advocate and will participate in. I hope that is a clear enough explanation. We would enjoy the oppurtunity to work with your company if your cool with our position. ONE
Well that cleared it up. No misunderstanding. No typo. No miscommunication. I had to reply today:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Nathan Wrann wrote:
While that is your position I don’t see any opportunity for us to work together. As you stated, It is true that a male and a female are needed to continue the cycle of life, however, at this point, the human race is not in danger of throwing off the balance of the universe due to the lack of natural conception and child births. Human beings are no longer at the mercy of our basest animal instincts. We, as a species on Earth, comfortably living in The United States, have transcended this “law of nature” and no longer need to dedicate our existence to propagation of the species. At this current, microscopic dot on the timeline of the history of the universe, we are free to pursue interests that elevate us above common wild animals. Interests such as art, science, philosophy and love. You claim your company is positive, yet love is the most positive force in our existence, whether that love is between a man and a woman, two women or two men. Your, so-called, “Positive” company would deny someone a positive, joyous, loving relationship? I don’t think it’s a “positive” position to discriminate against someone because they have found love and choose to dedicate their life to a relationship that you disapprove of based on some notion that relationships are only a means to procreate. You are an enemy of love. My wife and I are not planning on having children, which, according to your belief, will throw off the balance of the universe because we are in a relationship and will not be contributing to the continuation of the cycle of life.
If your company only works on projects that you feel promote what you call “the natural laws of life and the universe” then there are a number of other abstract aspects of modern society that you will probably be discriminating against such as: birth control, recreational consensual protected sex, modern medicine, monogamy, equal rights, animal rights, ethics, values, sharing, any form of government, laws, religion, charity and peace. According to your litmus test, the subjects that you approve of and promote include: “survival of the fittest”, heterosexual rape, dominance, male abandonment, and murder. The list of distasteful subjects could go on and on.
It is clear that you have deluded yourself into thinking that an intolerant mindset is somehow “positive” so this e-mail is not an attempt to change your mind, but rather an explanation of where I stand. It’s unfortunate that you have taken a path of bigotry, because when we talked you seemed to be an intelligent, educated, tech savvy young man that I otherwise would have liked to work with. I have known too many wonderful, positive and productive gays and lesbians and been witness to too many loving, caring, respectful homosexual relationships to remotely consider working with someone that would discriminate against some of my dearest friends.
Maybe, as you make your way through this short life, you’ll realize that only through inclusion, support, respect and love will we truly obtain our balance.
Maybe living in the “liberal” Northeast has made me complacent and I take things like a belief in “equal rights” for granted. But I must admit I was shocked that someone, in this area of the country, working (or trying to) in the “Entertainment Industry” had an anti-gay, discriminatory manifesto (without an obvious or apparent anti-gay agenda). Or maybe I’ve been protected and sheltered because the people that I collaborate with are creative, intelligent, respectful and supportive of the right to live your life how you want and share it with whomever you want.
Today Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in a “duh decision*” that banning gay marriage (Prop “8”) was unconstitutional. I thought it was an interesting coincidence regarding the timing of the e-mail communication I was in the midst of so I felt it was appropriate to share.
* A “duh decision” is a decision that seems so clearly logical and correct that it amazes me that it had to be determined in a court of law.