Connect with us

The Making Of ‘A Better Life’ – A Coming Out Story

Published

on

I always wanted to be a professional singer. In fact, when I was four years old my parents would ask me a question and I would sing them an answer.  The arts are just in my blood.  But during my teenage years I found that the conservative Christian upbringing I had told me there was something broken about me.  Maybe it was shame, maybe fear, I’m not sure, but the burden of being gay pushed me into Music Ministry work instead of following my dreams.  I felt like I had to pay some penance for my “sin” and shame.

I went to college, got a music degree, and was immediately working full time in the church.  I poured my shame and my guilt into my work.  Every day I would wake up and beg God to free me from this burden before I got caught and lost everything.  I felt like a fugitive living in the enemy’s camp.

I never knew who told the pastor or what happened exactly.  What I do know is that I walked into a regular staff meeting on a Monday evening and it was just the pastor, the head deacon, and myself.  What followed was an interrogation that eventually led to one question: Am I gay?  It’s amazing how life can sometimes balance on such a small point.  I knew the ramifications of my actions but I couldn’t live with this secret pain any longer.  In a small, timid voice I said, “yes, I’m gay”, forever changing the course of my life.

It was then I had to tell my parents.  I thought it was better for them to hear it from me than from someone else.  My father asked the normal questions: “Why choose this lifestyle?”, “Don’t you realize it’s an abomination to everything God is?”, and all I could say was, “I’m tired of fighting who I am”.  My father said at that point that he could not condone me living this way in his home.  He asked me to leave and not come back until I had a change of heart.  For the first time in my life I had stood my ground as a gay person in the midst of an ultra conservative world of repression and guilt about sexuality.  I had risen above the waters and finally was honest with who I really am.  But life is tradeoffs and in the process I lost everything that I had worked so hard for.  I lost my career as a Music Minister, I lost my family, and, at the time, I lost myself. At this point I felt abandoned without a direction to go, slowly seeing my life fade away without purpose.  Finding I was still alive and the sky had not fallen I began to build a new life from the ashes.  I’ve learned that when you come to the place where everything you know is lost, it’s there you can begin to build a new foundation.

 It was during this time that I struggled with my faith.  How could I accept a God who so clearly hated me?  What kind of God was willing to make my parents turn away from me in disgust and my employers fire me without recourse?  I had believed the lies that I was broken for so long I finally realized how much they had taken ahold in my life.  It took years for me to not only say I’m gay, but also to accept that is how God created me.  I noticed many people in the gay community that are burned by the church so badly that they never pursue the idea of faith, in any form, ever again.  I made it a personal mission to not let my spirituality be defined by the choices of others.  I’m not saying I have it all figured out, I still question everyday, but I don’t let my homosexuality come between myself and a relationship with God.

Eventually, in spite of being gay, I began to work at a church again part time and begin to heal the wounds.  Over and over I would ask my father to come and see me lead worship again at a church and see how I’m affecting lives in spite of being gay.  He always said he couldn’t because he had obligations at his own church.  Until one day he mentioned that he was going to miss church to work on a Sunday morning because of the workload at the time.  I said, “You would miss church to work but you won’t miss to see your son?” and I walked out.  It was in this moment that he realized I was walking out the door and never coming back.  His second and possibly last chance at reconciliation with his son was gone.  He finally understood that it was his bigotry, his societal perception, which made him so antagonistic against gay people.  Not his religious beliefs.  He finally understood what it meant to unconditionally love people.

 My dad ran me down and we talked for over an hour in the doorway of the building he worked in.  It was over the next hour and a half in that doorway that we would begin to mend a relationship broken by years of shame, judgment and misunderstanding.  Since then we have bonded more than we ever thought possible.

In my hour of greatest need I felt I had nowhere to turn; all too often this is the case for LGBT people and their families. It was my realization of this – that I was not alone in my struggle – that inspired me to take action.  I decided to make a feature film to talk about this unique take on a coming of age story. The process of making this movie has brought my father and I even closer together over the last year. to the point where he is a third owner of my film company.

A Better Life depicts the fallout of these events through a fictional narrative inspired by my real life experiences. The film’s message is that “It’s not the adversities we face in life, it’s how we respond to them that makes us who we are”.  It’s a character-driven film that does not shy away from the ugliness of the situation, but also serves to shine a light on the beauty that can be found in even the darkest times.  With constant reminders of the horrible things being done to gay people around the world in places like Russia and Uganda, it is important to me that this film expresses the possibility of grace and redemption.

The target date for the release of A Better Life is December 2015, but I need all the support I can get. My story isn’t just something I’ve experienced. You may very well know someone who has been through the same things or maybe you have been through these trials yourself. This is our opportunity to make a difference. I invite you to visit our website and consider joining the project.

 I know what it is like to live without hope, and I would never wish that on anyone.  My story isn’t just something I’ve experienced and I feel like It’s my opportunity to make a difference. To show the world what unconditional love truly is. If nothing else, by seeing this movie I hope that a teenage LGBT person can come to know that they are not alone and that there are people who can help them along this journey. As my dad said recently, “If I can change, the world can change.”

matt lynn2Matt is originally from Chattanooga, Tennessee and moved to Winter Park, Florida to pursue a secondary bachelor’s degree in Film at Full Sail University. In spring 2014 Matt was accepted into the American Film Institute Conservatory’s Masters of Cinematography program; he will begin school there fall 2014.  Matt has been involved with multiple aspects of the media industry including radio production, video and print mass media creation for churches, cinematic and commercial film work, and producing both weekly live production as well as larger dramatic productions in area churches. He also works as a professional singer at local area events and churches.

While attending Full Sail University, Matt worked on many short and feature length films and is an aspiring Cinematographer. From his learning experience at Full Sail University he is now a working Director of Photography in the Orlando area.

You can contact Matt at bridgethedivide@gmail.com

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

8 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

11 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.