SICK OF BEING MARGINALIZED

Last night a member of DC Mayor Williams' cabinet was murdered. She was Wanda Alston, who led DC's GLBT Affairs office. Actually, Williams created the cabinet post quite recently, and named Alston its first leader.

On radio news, they said her roommate found her dead.

I admit I am assuming Alston was gay. The Washington Post said it was her partner who found her.

Regardless of the actual relationship between Alston and the woman with whom she shared her home (and I'll follow up when I have the facts) I post this rant.

If Alston was gay and it was her partner who found her body, the god damned reporter ought to have said her partner found her dead. They can check their facts better than that before getting on the air. What a bunch of lame-brained assclowns at WTOP!

I am sick of members of my community being marginalized! My beloved is not my roommate! She is my partner, my spouse, my life-long permanent mate. We are committed until death parts us (just like the straight couples who've taken that vow -- imagine it!).

This is a marriage, folks.

Imagine how a straight woman would feel upon finding her husband murdered in their home, and then learning that the news has referred to her as his roommate. It's outrageous!

It is just as outrageous that we are referred to as roommates. In my opinion and experience, "roommate" is not validly interchangeable with partner, spouse, wife, or husband.

I'm sick of it!!

Now clearly there are more important issues in today's world, and I am not a one issue voter. But this is no less important to many of us than war, economy, world hunger, child abuse, church abuse, etc. If you think this issue is not that important, imagine your spouse being referred to without thought as your "roommate" in a similar situation.

/rant


Here's a brief bio of Alston (from before the cabinet position was created)
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/alstonnamedliaison1107.shtml

Here's the Post article on her murder
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42455-2005Mar17.html

Termite and I are coming up on 18 years...we are married...partners...not "roommates"

Sheez!

because, at the time, they didn't know if she was a partner or a roommate.
Was this report on much later than the event or just after it happened?
This is why I trust newspapers more than radio or television "breaking news." As someone formerly in the business, I know that newspapers - because they can't carry "breaking news" - have more time to check facts and more time to allow information to develop.
That said, I DO understand your feeling marginalized in today's society - but I'm sure it's because of much worse than this.

in the print edition this morning, you know that that had to be confirmed hours before the news reports I heard at 7 AM.

It was breaking news by 8:00 PM yesterday, but since I watch little TV news and heard nothing on the radio on the way home last night, WTOP was the first place I heard it.

:hi:

Not knowing the partner's actual status, it would be tantamount to an outing by the radio station if they did other than what they did. I don't think that's marginalization, I think that's erring on the side of caution. Or at least, that's the effect, if not the intention.

you insist that the person who found Ms. Alston's body be referred to as her "partner."

What if the person with whom she shared a house was NOT her partner?

How do you know that the Post reporter didn't make a mistake (or a false assumption), instead of the radio news announcer?

What if, as in the case of my lesbian friends J. and T., Ms. Alston was partnered with someone else, but lived with the person who found the body? What if (like J. and T.) the person who found her body was her ex-partner, but still-roommate?

What if, as can happen, Ms. Alston lived with a gay man, and shared rent with him, but was definitely not "partnered"?

What if the radio reporter actually asked the person who found the body if she was Ms. Alton's partner, and the person declined to say? "Outing" that person (accurately or inaccurately) against their will would be wrong, wouldn't it?

It is prudent to gather the facts before writing the rant. Saves embarassment.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

I've nothing to be embarrassed about.

Thank you.

What I read is:

You are angry because a person who (with the information available at this time) cannot be proven or disproven to be the partner/lover/friend/roommate/sister/rentsharer/subtenant of a murdered woman (who may or may not have been a lesbian, but whom you have nonetheless claimed as kindred) was not called her "partner" on a radio news report.


Does that accurately state your position?

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Now: read carefully:

I wrote:

1. "Regardless of the actual relationship between Alston and the woman with whom she shared her home (and I'll follow up when I have the facts) I post this rant."

2. "If Alston was gay and it was her partner who found her body, the god damned reporter ought to have said her partner found her dead."

3. Did you read the Post article? I posted a link to it. The Post wrote, "Alston, 45, was found by her partner face down near the front door of the two-story brick rowhouse just before 6 p.m., officials said." Do I have to explain who and what the Washington Post is? Don't you imagine that they would have their facts straight before publishing this article in print and on line hours before the report I heard on the radio?

4. Finally and most important, the status of Alston's relationship is incidental to my post. It was a general rant on the marginalization of gay couples. Whether Alston was gay or not and regardless of who the person who found her body was to Alston is all incidental to my anger. The use of the word "roommate" is what brought my anger on this subject to the fore.

Now. What else do you have to say, Pagan?

1. You wrote a rant about naming someone elses' relationship, or lack thereof, "regardless of the actual relationship" (which also meant, "regardless of the facts, I am angry,") and turned that into a slight against all committed same-sex couples. In some quarters, that would be called "irrational." Irrational arguments are rarely taken seriously.

2. You quoted (and linked to) the Post article that used the word "partner," and assumed that it correctly identified the relationship between the parties because it was in the Post.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.

Asking me if I know what the Washington Post is was silly, Bertha. I know exactly what the Post is. It's not gospel (heehee, the Pagan said "gospel"). It's just a newspaper. 24 hours after you buy it, it's birdcage lining.

Have you ever read the "Corrections" in the Post? That is the place where the editors write things like, "In the Post article of March 17, 2005 entitled "Williams Cabinet Member is Slain" (page A1) we incorrectly identified Joan Smith as the "partner" of Wanda R. Alston. The Post regrets the error." The Post, like almost every other newspaper, prints retractions and corrections on a regular basis. Of course, that means that the Post, like almost every other newspaper, makes mistakes on a regular basis.

Radio stations have less freedom to correct or retract false statements without consequence. "You can't un-ring a bell," as lawyers like to say. The radio newswriter and editor must be more cautious in their choice of words. Since the unidentified person is not quoted as stating that he/she was Ms. Alston's partner, the radio newswriter was correct to be cautious (if the choice of words was deliberate, which you have not established).

It is possible that the radio newswriter used a different source for information than the Post writer (reading a police report v. sending a reporter to the scene to interview witnesses). That different source may not have identified the unknown person as Ms. Alston's partner.

You may also consider the possibility that the radio station's attorney may have advised the news department to avoid use of the word "partner" without first-person corroberation, to avoid slander lawsuits.

Since many radio stations follow a process known as "rip-n-read" (reading news from a wire service is cheaper than paying for field reporters, cars, and gas), the wire service writer may have chosen the word "roommate," and the radio station newsreader may have read the story as written (removing culpability for accidentally insulting you from the radio station).

3. Since we can't change your feelings (only you can do that), since we can't go back in time to change that one word in one radio news report ("can't un-ring a bell", in other words), and since you will not likely get the radio newswriters to assume "partnership" between any two people who share an address (nor to use the word "marriage" where no valid marriage license exists), we appear to be out of options.

I won't be so rude as to say, "Now, what else do you have to say, Bertha?" I'll just say, "I look forward to reading your response."


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

... but I'm inclined to accept the "roommate" label at face value. D.C. is an expensive place to live and it's no uncommon to share living space with someone who is a non-romantic friend.

For the record, I share a home with another gay man but I would be mortified if the media reported he was my partner. He's got his own room and we are strictly roommates, so when I hear the word "roommate" being used I just assume it's someone in a similar living situation as mine until proven otherwise.

Oddly enough, I hear gay men use the word "roommate" to describe a parnter more than I hear it used that way among straights. I describe myself as single, but when I'm talking to gay men and mention my roommate, at least 75 percent of the time they will say something like, "I thought you said you were single."

You make a good point.

I seized upon that quote because I think it illustrates my point a little more. I think that, generally, in the "straight world," when they hear a gay person say "roommate" they think it's code for "partner."

I could be wrong. These are my impressions.

(BTW, I think, notwithstanding your clarification to him/her which stressed your feelings about Marginalization and euphamisms in a broader context, PaganPreacher's comments above are good ones in the context of this story - was "partner" an assumption simply because the victim and "roommate" may have been Lesbianese-Americans? Like you, I'm interested in hearing more before making an assumption, but ya gotta remember that the WaPo isn't infallible- hell, they gave us Steno Sue, didn't they?)

As long as we are marginalized, many GLBT'ers feel compelled to use the euphamism "roommate," as do many straight folks (of all viewpoints). This does, IMO, undermine the validity of GLBT relationships (as well as nonmarried straight ones)... and just flat muddies the language.

Personally, I refer to my SO as "The Light of My Life"... and not always tongue in cheek.

Edited for specificity