Chicken of the See

I used to be a cantor for the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Saint Joseph, in Columbus, Ohio. It was by far the most well-funded church music program in the city at that time, and employed many of the most talented classical singers in the area. I sang with them for several years, and really did enjoy much of it. I met some lifelong friends in that group, and got to perform some beautiful music (including the baritone solo for the Brahms "Requiem", with orchestra).

The monsignor of the Cathedral at that time was a very lovely man... CLEARLY gay... who showed me nothing but hospitality and kindness during my entire time there. Of course, as a relatively immature young man in my twenties, I had the luxury of being able to focus on the music and the not-insubstantial amount of money that I was making in that position, rather than the obvious conflict between my personal moral convictions and those of my employer.

I rather think that I would not be able to perform for such an organization again... as evidenced by my subsequent conscientious refusal to sing with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in Utah. But back then, I recall myself as a much less politicized person, and I recall our culture as being characterized by a much less polarized nature compared to the sociopolitical environment with which we are currently challenged. So when I think of the catholic church, St. Joseph's is the first thing that pops into my mind. It's a good memory. What follows that memory is not such a great image... the hypocrisy and homohatred that the church has shown throughout its history, most obviously exemplified by the many scandals associated with pedophilia and sexual predation among its priesthood.

The man pictured above is His Excellency Robert Finn, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City and Saint Joseph. He is the very first in what I hope will be a long string of high church officials to be indicted by a grand jury for his role in obstructing justice and covering up of evidence related to the sexual abuse of young people. He has been charged with withholding evidence, in this case lewd photographs of young girls taken by the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, a priest under his supervision. Bishop Finn delayed reporting the photographs to the police for six months, during which Ratigan allegedly abused yet another young girl.

Adding to the justifiable outrage is the knowledge that three years ago the very same Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 local plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities. Finn has, not surprisingly, been described as a "staunch theological conservative" and a "polarizing figure in his diocese".

More information on the many-years-long history of priestly abuse can be found here.

This case illustrates the long history of absurdity among religious conservatives, which very much includes protestant and evangelical loudmouths as well. Those who are willing to demonize and dehumanize minority groups (like women, racial minorities, and GLBT people) using the literal "bully pulpit" afforded to them by organized religion are most likely hiding their own transgressions that are far more damaging to society than anything some gay guy could dream up. It's also important to remember that the catholic priests involved in this business cannot be considered part of the gay community... they aren't gay... they're pedophiles and sexual predators. These men are living illustrations of the very big difference between the two.

No, not all catholics are pedophiles, and not all christians are maniacal bible-thumping hatemongers. But it's the quiet parishoners and churchgoers who deserve the second-largest heaping helping of the blame. As long as we sit there quietly and do nothing, we are complicit in the injustice and crimes of the organization to which we belong. If one breathlessly protests "but but but... we're the GOOD Christians... ", one's protestations are moot if not followed by a full-throated public outcry against the unforgiveable and often-criminal actions of church leaders.

Quit sitting there and letting it happen. Complain. No matter how pretty the music is.

Separated at birth?

Hateful bigot Sally Kern continued her ride on the "victim" train the other day. Speaking on some random Christian radio station (of which there are legion in my home state of Oklahoma), the crazed state representative said this:

"I have to be honest with you Rick, when I was sitting there in my car that day and when she told me that those emails were coming from homosexuals, honestly, fear gripped my whole body, because I was very aware of the homosexual lobbyists and the power that they have. And people say, 'oh you're so brave, so heroic,' but I'm not, I'm just a sinner saved by grace and I was gripped with fear that day. I just said, 'Lord, what have I done?' It entered our mind but honestly, and I mentioned this in the book, the Saturday night when my husband and I sit down and really talked about this and prayed about it, when we asked ourselves the question, are we willing ot even lose our lives over this?"

The answer to your question, you revolting twat, is this: what you have done is what so many other Christian supremacists have done. You've made ridiculous accusations against whole swaths of people, all of which are demonstrably false to anyone interested in looking at the actual evidence rather than bitching and moaning about non-existend Christian persecution. Show me one Christian bigot who has been killed by a homosexual activist. There aren't any. But I can do a quick Google search and show you HUNDREDS of GLBT people, children and adults alike, who have been bullied, attacked, tortured, oppressed, and murdered by God's Gentle People (TM).

If there were any justice in the world, you'd lose what tiny bit of influence you have over the low-information bigoted population you represent, and continue your unwitting career as a lookalike for Aughra, the one-eyed seer from The Dark Crystal.

It's worth remembering.

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

An epidemic of douchery.

I find it amazing that the revocation of collective bargaining rights (and the other nefarious proposals in the republican budget plan) have stirred such passions in normally moribund Americans that they've been protesting at the Statehouse for an entire month. This picture was taken two days ago, on Saturday. There were over 100,000 people on the square, which is amazing given that the entire Madison metro area has only about 561,000 residents.

The republican plan to divide-and-conquer by pitting struggling private sector workers against also-struggling public sector workers has been remarkably successful. It's tempting for people when republicans keep telling them to blame those greedy public-sector workers and their nefarious unions for the budget crisis in Wisconsin (if there even is one). Yeah, those teachers and doctors and cops and firefighters and snowplow drivers and prison guards and pothole-fillers and garbage collectors and social workers... greedy bitches with tons of cash who just go aroud flaunting those pensions in front of "real" Americans.

Never mind that the people who are to blame are the truly greedy bastards on Wall Street, as well as the general American public for their years of blithe ignorance. Yes, I said the American public is partly to blame. As long as the money was rolling in, no one cared how it was being made. But like sausage, if the process by which the product is made is flawed, one can get sick.

So now the republicans have passed, through devious parliamentary shenanigans which are still under legal question, a "budget repair bill" that has little to do with the budget and doesn't really repair anything. Up to 60% of Wisconsin residents oppose the de-certification of unions, but no one in the republican party seems to give a rat's ass. Walker keeps saying it's about the money... but the unions already capitulated to the financial aspects of the bill, and only wanted to keep their collective bargaining rights. No dice, say the repubs, right after passing a $130,000,000 tax cut for the wealthy and for corporations.

Here are some highlights from this stinker of a bill:

1. Public employees will take a 6% pay cut to contribute more to the pension system (which is fully funded at this time, and is one of the best-managed pension funds in the country).

2. Public employees will at least double their contributions to their health insurance plans, and the government will investigate offering high-deductible shitty insurance to the public workforce.

3. Public employee unions would be able to bargain only for wage increases up to the cost of inflation, and will not be able to collect dues through payroll deduction. Contracts would be limited to one year, and unions would require an annual re-certification process. Police and firefighter unions, who supported Walker's election campaign, are exempt. The prison guards, who supported the Democratic candidate, are not. Natch.

4. If the Governor declares a state of emergency, for whatever reason, that will empower him to fire any and all employees who have too many absences or take any work slowdown or strike action.

5. Home health care workers and family child care workers, thankless jobs if ever there were any, are no longer allowed to bargain collectively under the state Medicaid program.

6. UW Hospital employees have had their collective bargaining rights revoked, and UW faculty and academic staff are barred from forming any collective bargaining units.

7. Medicaid eligibility will be adjusted so that thousands will be thrown off the rolls. But when these uninsured people die, republicans have offered more money to the fund that pays for burial of destitute people.

8. $900 million will be slashed from the education budget for public schools, while more money will be diverted to private and charter schools. Because the teachers caused all this, of course.

9. The Governor will be empowered to sell state-owned utilities to the Koch brothers' corporation, with no-bid contracts, at pennies on the dollar.

There's more. Much, much, much more. The republican attack on education is revelatory, particularly given the fact that the current Governor was kicked out of Marquette university for cheating, had a 2.3 GPA, and never graduated. So much for preachers' kids being model students.

The republican ditto-heads also are sitting around droning on about how "elections have consequences". To a certain extent that's true, and should serve as a horrible warning against voting for a party full of corporate douchebags who don't care one whit about the best interest of the people. The republicans cite the passage of "Obamacare" as justification for passing this stinker of a bill despite overwhelming opposition. It should be noted that the passage of the health care act was done with a full quorum and in the light of day (unlike this bill's passage), and most importantly, at the end of the day, no one lost any rights. This is not at all comparable to the passage of the health care act. Not in the slightest. And the smug, idiotic, ginned-up derision and hatred being directed at the state's teachers is absolutely disgusting.

This is not about who wins and who loses. It's not even about the budget. It's about the rights of workers to have a voice in the workplace. It's about being able to bargain collectively for wages, retirement, health insurance, working conditions, unsafe or unfair labor practices. and a mechanism for the redress of grievances. Do you think that any corporate or governmental employer would have provided a retirement pension, decent wages, or health care had the labor movement not been as strong as it was? No, of course it wouldn't have. The labor movement was born in Wisconsin almost a century ago. It's part of the culture and heritage of this state. And the middle class is part of what makes this country strong and prosperous. But of course, out of a spirit of greed and malice, comes a republican party that seeks to reduce the middle class to near-poverty while enriching their corporate benefactors and wealthy donors, all while demonizing the people whose work is essential to our communities.

And people vote for these asshats... why?

On Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is embroiled in some of the most shameful politically-driven attacks on the working class of America that this country has ever seen. Republicans, through their public and private statements, have shown that they only care about one thing: ensuring that the middle class is destroyed through the redistribution of wealth to benefit the rich. The Democrats, hardly the historic champions of honesty and virtue, have shown that if they're given enough public support they can indeed grow a spine. And Republicans have the gall to call these protests shameful.

There is only one thing that is shameful in this whole mess, and that's the revocation of workers' rights... workers' rights that were born in this state and for which people fought and died in this state at the beginning of the 20th century... not so very long ago. This is what it looks like when Democrats grow a spine, and it's about time someone fought vigorously for someone who didn't donate a million dollars to this politician or that. After what happened in the "debates" over health care reform, are we to take seriously these faux concerns from Republicans about civil discourse? Really? They don't get to complain about that ever again.

The senators who are in Illinois right now are doing exactly the right thing, and should be commended for protecting the rights of people who can't afford to open lobbying offices in Madison (as the Koch brothers did today). Having a simple majority does not mean that that majority should be able to strip rights away from the minority. Isn't that what we talk about all the time with respect to GLBT issues? Why wouldn't we feel the same way when it comes to the rights of workers to bargain collectively for benefits and working conditions?

I am not a union member, but I also know that unions exist for very good reasons... before they existed, employers (including the government) exploited their workers shamefully. Without public employee unions, what's to stop this or future governors from stripping employees of their pensions? Or cutting off all health benefits? Or legislating a 75% wage cut? Seriously, what's left to stop them, if not the political and financial muscle of the unions? This is quite clearly the direction that the right wing in this country is heading... elimination of dissent by cutting off the funding sources. (Thanks to the Citizens United case, Republican funding has never been more vigorous.)

I said it before and I'll say it again...

Ignore Wisconsin at your peril.

Union, Jack.

Best comment so far on the recent efforts by Republican douchebags to eliminate collective bargaining in the public sector:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work.

He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

You can't fire me. You don't even know my name.

CNN reported today that Donald Trump, reality show personality and 1980s-era real estate douchebag, has clarified his stance on some social issues after his appearance at the recent CPAC conference (a convention for haters and fearmongers). His thoughts on marriage equality?

"I am not in favor of gay marriage. I live in New York. New York is a place with lots of gays, and I think it's great, but I'm not in favor of gay marriage."

Whether or not Trump is "in favor of gay marriage" is irrelevant. Marriage is a civil and human right that we all deserve to share in equally. Besides, why would anyone care what Trump thinks about marriage? He's been married three times. If right-wingers want to see someone whose behavior is eroding their definition of the traditional family, all they have to do is tear their eyes away from gay people long enough to focus them on this bizarrely-coiffured buffoon.

Those must be amazing kebabs.

We often think of Australians as happy, tanned, sporty people living on the beach and putting shrimp on their barbies.

They are, apparently, much more hardened to the violence and gore of modern life than we thought.

Right now, Sydney is hosting the annual gay and lesbian Mardi Gras festival. Statistics initially showed decreased numbers of violent assaults compared to previous festivals. However, it appears that the decreased frequency of assaults has been balanced out by the sheer brutality of the attacks.

In the above photo, from the Sydney Daily Telegraph, we see the 4 Seasons Chicken Spot, on the corner of Bayswater Road and Darlinghurst Road. According to local dining reviews, "this is the king of all late night hangouts. It's hard to explain how popular this place is. When you've exhausted all options of semi healthy places to eat, this joint … is packed to the rafters with drunk dickheads and arrogant British males, snapping up every type of mystery kebab and snacks that kind of resemble food. Very scary food, so this should be your absolute last resort."

I heartily agree. In this establishment, apparently minutes before this photo was taken, a 25-year-old man was slashed in the throat by an unidentified male. "There was a pretty huge Tongan Samoan bloke and a little fella," a witness who gave her name only as Jamie said. "The little fella smashed a bottle and he slashed the Tongan across the neck. It cut an artery and the blood was spurting."

Another woman applied towels to the victim's neck to stem the bleeding until he was rushed to St Vincent's Hospital. The wound required 35 stitches. Police spoke to him briefly yesterday but he was still under sedation. His attacker, described as in his late 20s to early 30s, Middle Eastern or Islander in appearance with balding or short hair, was still on the run last night.

What's amazing is that the kebab shop continued to serve customers despite the fact that their entire restaurant was covered in blood. Do you see any evidence of mopping? I don't. All I see is a gory linoleum floor and a blood-spattered sneeze guard, the presence of which doesn't make me feel any better about the food under it.

The Homosexuals (1967)

This 1967 CBS documentary on homosexuality (hosted by a young Mike Wallace) would be hysterical if it weren't so sad. The inclusion of Charles Socarides (1922-2005) was interesting. He was one of the first pseudo-scientists who suggested "reparative therapy" for gay people, suggesting that homosexuality wasn't a moral issue after all, but was rather a psychiatric condition in need of treatment. He was also the founder of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Given the time period, I imagine that this approach seemed more reasonable than that of the criminal justice system.

The fascinating part of his story was the transformation of his thought processes from that of a scientist to that of a zealot. Even up until 2004, Socarides held fast to his beliefs that homosexuality was an illness resulting from an overbearing mother and a distant or absent father, even when the vast majority of reputable research indicated otherwise. He went so far as to misrepresent intentionally the position of the American Psychoanalytic Association, citing a 1968 position paper expressing general agreement with his theories about homosexuality, and ignoring a 1990 revised position paper that strenuously contradicted them. (This kind of biased cherrypicking is verboten in the literature review process.) In turn, NARTH was (and still is) identified widely as a disreputable, biased, and non-evidence-based organization.

It's interesting to note that Richard Socarides, the son of this discredited psychiatrist, is an openly gay man who served as President Clinton's advisor on GLBT issues (among other high-profile positions in government and in business).

I was also struck by the first man interviewed in the piece. His reasonable explanations and confident assertion of the inherent equality of gay people would be relevant even today. He was ahead of his time, to be sure. I hope he's still around to see how right he was, and how the opinions and mores of the country are finally starting to turn in his direction.

This documentary, produced just three years before I was born, is a graphic reminder of how far we've come in just my almost-forty years. It's also a reminder of how important it is to continue fighting for equal civil and human rights for GLBT people.


Addendum:


Thanks to an eagle-eyed Towleroad commeter, the first man interviewed in the report (whom I mentioned above) has been identified as Jack Nichols (his real name). From Wikipedia:

Nichols founded the Mattachine Society of Washington in 1961, and the Mattachine Society of Florida in 1965. The Mattachine Society of Washington was independent of the national Mattachine Society, with had formally disbanded a few months earlier.

Beginning in 1963, he chaired the Mattachine Society of Washington's Committee on Religious Concerns, which later developed into the Washington Area Council on Religion and the Homosexual. This organization was pioneering in forging links between the gay rights movement and the National Council of Churches.

Nichols led the first gay rights march on the White House, in April 1965, and participated in the Annual Reminder pickets at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, held each July 4 from 1965 to 1969. He also successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to rescind its definition of homosexuality as a form of mental illness.

In 1969, after moving to New York City, Nichols and his partner Lige Clarke founded GAY, the first weekly newspaper for gay people in the US distributed on newsstands.

From February 1997, Nichols was Senior Editor at GayToday.com, an online newsmagazine. He died on May 2, 2005, of complications from cancer.

I'm glad he lived through the 80's and got to see the tide turning in the right direction.

On discretion.

"Don't you know the meaning of propriety?!?"
- Madeline Kahn as Eunice Burns in "What's Up, Doc?"

I've mentioned before that I'm a relatively old-school kind of guy, one who enjoys the process of doing or creating some things in a decidedly old-fashioned way. This applies to things like pie crusts, shoeshining, and libations. However, being a proud gay person and being socially and politically progressive, I have to admit that the retro approach doesn't always apply to me. It's this dichotomy between taking pleasure in tradition and being open to new ways of doing things that has been giving me dyspepsia lately. In this age of Facebook, blogs, and reality television, is there still a functional benefit to discretion?

I don't mean discretion in the sense of making good choices. Everyone is a product of a collection of their previous wise and foolish decisions. I mean discretion in the sense of showing the ability "to preserve prudent silence", as Merriam-Webster puts it. In a society that encourages transparency and "full disclosure", might there be a personal and social benefit to keeping one's mouth shut?

Take blogs, for example. Most blogs, mine included, focus on ideas and discussions rather than the airing of the author's personal issues. Some, though, have used their publicly accessed blogs to create an open forum in which they can divulge and then perhaps discuss the most intimate details of their lives. Marital woes... reproductive challenges... medical problems... you name it. There may be a salacious pleasure in reading such accounts, as they tend to make us feel better about the relative order of our own lives. Few people discuss these kinds of intensely personal problems in any kind of meaningful detail unless those details reveal an utterly out of control situation, and people tend to feel good knowing that while they might have problems of their own, they are nothing like these basket cases.

But any transient benefit felt by the reader must be balanced by the motivation of the writer. Why might someone publish such information to be read by the general public? Could it really be a pathetic plea for attention that motivates these people, or might there be a legitimate call for advice? Must the writer be a lonesome hermit to explain their revelations and their attention-seeking behaviors, or might there be another motivation?

Another example is found in reality television. We've all watched it. We've all enjoyed it to a certain extent. I'll admit to having watched The Real Housewives. I found myself enthralled, if for only a short while, by the utterly inappropriate behavior of these women. Perhaps my thrill was that of a person who was comparing the tranquility and order of his own life against the nouveau-riche emptiness and out-of-control behavior of the women on the show. Maybe I was just bored. But that doesn't explain the motivation of the people on the show. Are they all just whores for attention? Could it really be that simple? If so, what about their families? Do they suffer from the same dysfunction, or were they just along for the ride? What benefit did they experience, and at what cost?

I'm reminded of my own childhood, in which friends were hard to come by sometimes. The result was that I would truly value and cherish my close friendships, and still do to this day. But if I were to change the focus of this blog... alter its content to feature the personal details of my own life... would that somehow detract from the value of a "best friend" or confidante? If I were to share things like medical complications, marital problems, or family drama, would it somehow de-value the role that my closest confidantes play in my life?

I'm starting to think that while social networking opportunities like Facebook and blogging have shown incredible capacity to help maintain relationships and create new ones, they can also offer opportunities to air our dirty laundry in utterly inappropriate ways. Call it old-fashioned if you want, but I have become more resolved in my opinion that access to the innermost circle of one's life should be hard-earned. It's best for those involved, to be sure. But it's also best for our society. And for those pathetic souls who desire nothing more than to fire up the computer and pour their personal lives (and those of their friends and family) onto the screen... might I suggest a hand-written diary? If you need a more public option than that, then a good hard day of introspection is in order.

But the rice will get stuck in the keyboard if I throw it...

I noticed this article on CNN today. It strikes me as odd that this douchebag can marry some video game avatar (not a real person), but I can't marry my partner of 16 years (who IS a real person). This is preserving the "sanctity of marriage"?

Something is very very wrong with that, no matter how you slice it.

She is the perfect bride -- perhaps if you're a misogynist. Nene Anegasaki is beautiful, fun and doesn't talk back. She's also a character in the Nintendo DS video game Love Plus. Japan's Internet community has witnessed relationships and marriages to avatars, though it's typically been within the confines of the virtual world. Last month, a Tokyo man called Sal 9000 -- the only name he would give -- decided to be part of the first human-to-avatar union. Clad in a white tux, Sal married Nene in front of some friends and Web users watching the ceremony live online.
CNN: Tokyo man marries video game character

In which The Milkman gets on his soapbox. Again.

Last month, New Hampshire conservative radio talk show host and blogger Doug Lambert was fired from both gigs after apparently losing his mind and entering into a tirade against state Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley. It was covered extensively on Towleroad, where the unpleasantness was described thusly:





"After his radio show 'Meet the New Press' ended today, GraniteGrok.com co-founder Doug Lambert looked into a live web-streaming camera, mockingly wished state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley a Happy Birthday and then called Buckley a 'faggot' before basically wishing him dead....After co-host Skip Murphy said that he should probably shut off the feed, Lambert looked into the camera and said, 'Speaking of gays, Happy Birthday Ray Buckley. Are you going to Holland or taking another trip with your buddies?' He then dances in a way meant to mock a gay male and says: 'Yeah you Faggot. [Pause.] That's right I said it and I meant it. You are reprobate. How the people, the Democrats, I think of some of the gray haired ladies and older people from the old party would stand behind you is beyond me. You are a disgrace to yourself to humanity to mankind and to your party. Other than that Happy Birthday Ray and many more -- not,' Lambert continued before the feed was quickly shut off."





Just before he was fired, the offender's website hosted a lively commentary section regarding this squalid incident. (It should be noted that Mr. Lambert allowed his co-blogger, "Skip", to deal with the fallout from his actions rather than man up and take the criticism himself.) It was populated by pissed off gays and homophobic apologists, and featured a re-hash of some tired old right-wing arguments. I've heard some of these arguments before, particularly toward the end when the man I was debating ("Don") started to feel like he was on the losing end of the argument.



Sadly, Political Correctness (and those that attempt to define what is correct or not) have forgotten what the First Amendment means. For folks like you, and your brethren in CA who have literally have had people fired and businesses shut down merely for supporting CA's Proposition 8, it seems that NO apology will ever be sufficient.
Posted by: Skip November 15, 2009 1:28 PM

No apology will ever be sufficient, that's correct. You can't apologize for remarks and antics like that, particularly given the statement "Yeah you Faggot. [Pause.] That's right I said it and I meant it. You are reprobate. How the people, the Democrats, I think of some of the gray haired ladies and older people from the old party would stand behind you is beyond me. You are a disgrace to yourself to humanity to mankind and to your party." That was no errant slip of the tongue. That was hate, pure and simple. Frankly, this is exactly how I like my bigots. I've always preferred it when they own their own prejudice and wallow in it, rather than cloak it behind "Christian love". The First Amendment, by the way, only prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from silencing free speech. It does not mean that one can spew whatever kind of idiocy they like without any sort of criticism or backlash. Denying civil and human rights to a minority, even an unpopular minority, is reprehensible. Those who support those actions, even if the mob is in the majority, deserve every bit of scorn heaped upon them. Hopefully the Republican party has learned its lesson, and will start distancing themselves from troglodytes such as yourself. Like my grandma always said, "Lie down with dogs, and you get up with fleas." If I were a Republican these days, I'd be pretty tired of scratching.
Posted by: The Milkman November 15, 2009 1:50 PM

Doug's comments were inappropriate in any setting. Having said that, these are not comments he normally makes. He has apologized and he will pay a price for his offense. It seems odd to me that those on this side of the fence must grovel and beg for forgiveness whenever a mistake is made. Contrast that with the other side, who circle the wagons and defend their own- no matter what. A double standard maybe? You can be the judge. Lastly, it is hypocritical to hold others to a standard that you yourself can not maintain. As you would seek forgiveness for your own crimes against others, so to should you offer it when others offend. Think about that. Let your own conscience, if you have one, be your guide.
Posted by: Don November 16, 2009 7:40 AM

I'm happy to forgive Mr. Lambert, Don... after he demonstrates true remorse and makes tangible amends to the many people, straight and gay, whom he offended. I won't hold my breath. I don't care what kinds of blather he normally says. This was beyond the pale, and you and every single one of his other listeners knows it. The really pathetic thing is that his supporters are claiming anti-Republican bias... as if we'd stand for this kind of hatred from a Democrat... please. Those who think these comments are somehow worse than Mr. Lambert's vomitous statements have clearly never had anything like that directed at them. Spend a few years in someone else's shoes... trying to get through the day without being called a faggot or being assaulted, marginalized, or discriminated against... and THEN we'll talk. Until then, though, your ignorance is showing.
Posted by: The Milkman November 16, 2009 9:23 AM

"...after he demonstrates true remorse and makes tangible amends..." And in your view, what would that entail? An earlier comment already said that "...No apology will ever be sufficient, that's correct..."; at least you seemingly would give Doug a chance - what would that be?
Posted by: Skip November 16, 2009 10:02 AM

You know exactly what that means... acknowledgement that the statement was utterly unacceptable in civilized society, a heartfelt apology for his actions (not an "i'm sorry if anyone was offended" non-apology), and a demonstrated tangible effort to educate himself on GLBT issues. Look at Ted Olson for example... when he first started this whole marriage equality suit with David Boies, the entire GLBT community freaked out because of his previous right-wing history. His actions and statements during these legal proceedings have largely turned the community's opinion in his favor. Trust me, I know we have some characters in our community... but we recognize bigotry when we see it, and we know a sincere apology when we hear one.
Posted by: The Milkman November 16, 2009 10:42 AM

If I knew EXACTLY what it meant, I wouldn't have asked. That said, is this what you are demanding is this: nothing less than a total capitulation of a belief in a traditional marriage stance is acceptable? That everyone be in lockstep with on LGBT issues?
Posted by: Skip November 16, 2009 10:46 AM

The same, harsh judgment you say Doug has lowered him to, is being exhibited by many on this post right now. So many folks like to use the "judge not, lest ye be judged" line. How many of you know the next verse? It is, "For as you judge, so shall it be measure unto you." Instead of beating someone up, how about trying to dialogue and educate about the issue? They may never agree with your point of view, but you can all be civil and respectful toward one another. Hatred only breeds more hatred. Many posts here are adding fuel to the fire and are really not accomplishing anything constructive. If you have the courage, take the road less traveled- turn the other cheek and show kindness. We will all be bigger and better people for it.
Posted by: Don November 16, 2009 1:44 PM

[Yes], that's exactly what I mean. There is no reasonable argument against full equality for GLBT Americans. People don't like to think that their prejudices constitute bigotry against their fellow citizens, but in this case, that's exactly what it is.
Posted by: The Milkman November 16, 2009 6:23 PM

In this ongoing war of words, many of us have been deeply wounded- on both sides. Anger must give way to reason and cooler heads should prevail. Have any of us said or done things that were harebrained and stupid? Of coarse we have. Certainly I have. But what I have found is that I am able to make a greater impact in such situations with kindness and reason. If you beat people down, you make a more aggressive, determined, lifelong enemy. Defuse the situation by offering compassion, kindness and forgiveness. Again, they may never agree with you, but they will respect you. These attacks on this post show that many of us are as guilty as the others. We have no room to talk. Search your own hearts and decide if there is room for humanity, room for compassion, room for forgiveness. I bet if you took a moment, you would realize we all need a little compassion from time to time.
Posted by: Don November 16, 2009 6:38 PM

To all who are posting here- Come and let us reason together. One of the many bumper stickers I see is "Hatred is not a family value". I wonder; is that only for my family or does it include yours? Is it not a fair thing to ask, that each of us practice what we preach? You don't want to be painted with a broad brush- how about you doing the same? Stop the attacks on the republican party and Christians. By attacking them you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse Doug of. And the funny thing is, that there are those within these 2 groups that support you. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. That seems a bit ungrateful to me. Are you all so far above reproach that you can be so free with your comments? I could only wish that I was that perfect. Until that day, I will offer what I look for- forgiveness. I am not a perfect person- neither are any of you. Lastly; Many of you believe in restorative justice for murderers and rapists. How about some for Doug?
Posted by: Don November 17, 2009 6:39 AM

Don, I like the direction you're going... to a point, at least. I appreciate the value you place on civil discourse and mutual respect. But perhaps you can try to understand the other position for a second. Those Christians who oppose GLBT equality often complain about a double standard when it comes to "hatred". What they don't understand is that the animosity they are experiencing is not hate, but anger. The anger is the direct result of the tendence of some religious people (Christian or otherwise) to try to force others to conform to the rules of their religion through the legislative and social denial of secular civil liberties toward GLBT people. Again, I'm talking about SECULAR civil liberties. No gay person will tell a conservative religious person that they should be forced to attend gay pride parades and volunteer for PFLAG. But as long as we live in a country that (thank God) has a separation between church and state, everyone (including religious people) has a responsibility to respect the civil liberties and human rights of their fellow citizens. This responsibility has, in recent years especially, been pointedly disregarded by religious conservatives... ignoring the fact that plenty of their fellow believers in other denominations would disagree strongly with how they're treating their GLBT brothers and sisters. So when religious conservatives find themselves on the receiving end of animosity from GLBT people, it's not because gay folks hate them for being religious, or even for thinking gay people are gross. They get angry because that the political process, motivated by religion-based bigotry (yes, it's bigotry), has very often caused a restriction of their secular civil liberties. The oppressed are not obligated to be tolerant toward their own oppressors, even if that oppression is based on a Biblically justifiable but no longer socially acceptable bias. Religious conservatives think we're all going to burn in hell, and maybe they're right... who knows... but as long as we're here on this Earth, and as long as we live in America, we deserve the same secular civil and human rights as the most fervent Baptist.
Posted by: The Milkman November 17, 2009 11:06 AM

Milkman- I would say that you pass an awful lot of judgments in your comments. If you would re read your comments, you will see that you are trying to paint me into a corner. By doing so, you are violating my rights of free speech, association, religion, education of my children, etc...... You are also saying that I must march to your tune, your way or I am a hater. With respect- You are completely wrong! Like you, I do not have to support anyone that I fundamentally disagree with. That does not make either one of us haters. That is freedom of association. You vote your sexuality, I vote my faith. Whats the difference? For all of the hating that you say has been directed against gays, may I respectfully direct you to those who have been harassed simply for supporting the marriage amendment in California. Would you like for me to research that side of things and post the numerous links to reported incidents here? I can if you'd like. Personally, I don't see the need, but I will if you insist. We all need to stop being disingenuous here! A lot of people have been wronged on both sides. Just look at some of the remarks above. You have the ability to help stop the hate. But do you have the courage to?
Posted by: Don November 17, 2009 7:59 PM

Don - Exactly how am I preventing you from speaking your mind, associating with anyone you wish, educating your children, or exercising your religion? Yes, I think your views on marriage and GLBT issues in general are prejudiced... but I don't think you should go to jail for it or be silenced. You don't need to try to impress me with incident reports of anti-religious harassment, because in that game the gay guy will always ALWAYS win. (Please... "the hating that you say has been directed against gays"... are you serious?) You seem to be missing the point. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to enact legislation to force others to conform to your particular sect's beliefs. Again, we're dealing with CIVIL rights here. I fully support your right to think we're all going to hell, to call us faggots, to refuse to recognize our relationships as equal to your own. Bigotry is a personal choice (unlike being gay). But please don't pretend that you're some sort of victim. Your concept of "stopping the hate" seems to be for us to roll over and allow religious zealots to set the rules without regard to the civil rights of nonbelievers. You want courage? Try living your life openly and honestly surrounded by people who would like nothing more than to see you silenced or dead. I'm starting to suspect that your pretty rhetoric about love and respect has little to do with either, and more to do with just "agreeing to disagree". No. There is no room to "agree to disagree" when it comes to my equal humanity and equal civil rights. You either think I'm equal to you, or you don't. You clearly don't. And that makes you...... no, I won't say it. You know deep down what it means. Do you have the courage to face that?
Posted by: The Milkman November 18, 2009 8:59 AM

Civil rights are what society, as a whole, say that they are. Yours, like mine, can be removed or modified by majority vote of Congress. If that is not so, then why is that gun owners must always beat back gun control and elect people that support their rights- even though the 2nd Amendment guarantees it? Isn't that what the gay community has done in the last election? Of coarse! If you are to be treated equally before a civil government, are polygamous people allowed the same civil rights? How about those that say they love animals? Do they all have the same rights? Where do you draw the line? How can you draw any lines, based upon your own arguments? Lines for behavior and conducting business are drawn by society using laws. Laws are, by their very nature, moral. They say that this is right and that is wrong. It has always been this way down through the ages. Pagans, Christians, Buddhists, Hindu's, etc... All have drawn lines within society to regulate everything. So- the only question you and I are discussing is who's values we are going to use and where the lines will be drawn. Nothing more. Lastly, yes I am one of the victims. I saw my 5 year old daughter being indoctrinated in public schools with values contrary to biblical teaching. I had no rights and was considered an extremest because I wanted my daughter raised with my values, not theirs. This is happening all across America and the gay community supports it. They call it teaching tolerance- I say it is nothing less than indoctrination of our children. How dare you support that! So, get off of your high horse, pal. I don't need any lectures from the self righteous!
Posted by: Don November 18, 2009 6:53 PM

Aaaaand here we go. The sad and pathetic arguments of bigots who desperately want to find a reasonable excuse for their bigotry. Let me tell you something, Don. Gay people are not animals. Gay couples are not the same thing as those who are polygamous. Laws are not, in and of themselves, moral. Was the Dred Scott decision moral? What about the laws in Colorado that were so virulently homophobic that the Supreme Court struck them down? Lawrence v Texas? What if the majority wanted to ban Christianity? Would that be moral? No, no, no, and no. Civil and human rights should never be up to a vote of the mob. I deserve them because I'm human and an American, and I don't give a good flying fuck whether you think I'm going to hell or not. I can't imagine what they were teaching your 5 year old daughter... and I don't care. It's your responsibility as a parent to make sure she is exposed to the teachings you support, and if you don't like how the public school does it you're welcome to home school or send her to a religious institution. I don't indoctrinate children, and neither does anyone else. And as far as a "high horse" is concerned, wasn't it you who was blathering on about "stopping the hate"? So much for your self-righteous bullshit... everybody should love everybody as long as they believe what I think they should. We don't have to like each other, but we do have to respect each other's equal human and civil rights. I will do that for you, even if you don't do it for me... because I know that the tide of history is moving in my direction. Enjoy your irrelevance. Bye now...
Posted by: The Milkman November 24, 2009 2:16 PM

R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

Republicans have been so terribly devoid of any substantive and relevant ideas for so long that they are now lashing out through childish, boorish, destructive behavior. What happened to the educated, serious, respectable conservatives? There is a place for these voices in government. Where are they? Why have they allowed their party to devolve into a vomitous mass of lying, histrionic, paranoid mouthbreathers who wouldn't be able to distinguish a college classroom from a Steak N Shake? Lincoln would be horrified.

Even during the height of the war crime-laden administration of Bush fils, Democratic officials never shouted him down during a speech to Congress, and never sat there texting or tweeting on their Crackberries during a televised national speech. Bush's policies certainly deserved more condemnation than they got, but there was always a level of respect for the office. It says something that's quite damning about the character of the current officeholders in the Republican party that they can't seem to pull it together any better than this.

I will re-post a prayer written by "Another Steve", a commenter on Joe.My.God:

A prayer commissioned for Representative Wilson, from The Book of Daggers.

***

O Heavenly Substitute for Personal Responsibility, why did you send us a black man as President? Why must we be subjected to the proper conjugation of verbs by a Head of State? O Imaginary One, send us a tittie queen to lead us back to the random placement of words in sentences. Make her lips large and firm so that, as it was prophesized in days of old, "Thy homeschoolers will tug on their crotches and go to the polls, that thy minions shall once again reign throughout the land."

***

We ask this in the name of The Flying Drano Monster, who makes all things tax-exempt. Amen.

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

Three cheers for Barney Frank. Finally someone speaks truth to the lunacy that has gripped approximately 20% of Americans. I'm usually one who thinks that divergent opinions should be given due consideration, but some people are so clearly deranged and deluded that they really can't legitimately make the claim that their statements should be given equal merit.

Birther spokescunt Orly Taitz implodes again

Dr. Orly Taitz, dentist and quasi-attorney, is the spokescunt for the birthers. The birthers are the right wing freaks who claim that Barack Obama is illegitimate because he was born in Kenya and not the United States. These people believe this preposterous lie despite having been provided with Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii. They have even gone so far as to fabricate Kenyan birth certificates... not realizing of course that the Republic of Kenya didn't exist until December 1964... ten months after Obama's birthday. Oops. But then again, no one ever accused the birthers of being a bunch of Rhodes scholars. It should be mentioned that Taint... er... Taitz... is Russian. Interesting, no? It has also been mentioned that she was admitted to the California bar after completing an online training program through William Howart Taft University, an unaccredited distance learning school. She is not a member of the American Bar Association, and the "degree" she received through Taft allows her, at best, to practice only in the state of California.

The clip above shows the sheer lunacy of what the Republican party has become. It's sad, really, that the party of Lincoln has aligned itself so closely with people who are clearly unbalanced.

Finally, I think the pictures above show that even Crazy Britney© looked better in that nasty Eva Gabor wig than Ms. Taint. Taitz. Whatever.

I can just imagine the beginnings of the birther movement. Picture it, November 2008, the Taint living room:

"Oh my God. We did NOT just elect a Schwartzer to the White House. That just can't be true! No! I'm going to put my head in the oven right now! But wait... waitaminute... maybe he's not really an American... that's right, that's the ticket... ohmygod... it has to be true... he was born in deepest darkest Africa and not in Hawaii... ohmygodohmygodohmygod..."

Yes, Sooner fans really are this gross.

So... pissed... off... right... now... can't... breathe...

So here's what we know so far about the bone Obama is throwing to equality advocates. In the last 3 weeks alone, his administration defended DOMA by comparing us to incestuous couples and sexual predators, and after entering into a pissing contest with Congress to see which one would be forced to address the DADT issue first. His silence about both matters has been deafening, and his administration's weak lip service regarding all things related to GLBT equality, which at one time was inspiring, has now been shown to be nothing more than hollow rhetoric.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will sign a memorandum Wednesday granting some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, two senior administration officials said.


It will provide some health care benefits, but will stop short of full health coverage, the officials said. Details of the benefits were not immediately available.

Section 3 [of the Defense of Marriage Act] prevents the federal government from giving Social Security and other protections to same-sex married couples.

"Laws have to change ... and in particular, the Defense of Marriage Act needs to change, so whatever the few benefits that the president as an employer can grant, there won't be a lot of them," Cunningham said.

Obama rankled gay advocates in January when he selected mega-church pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren, in an interview with Beliefnet, likened homosexuality to bestiality and incest. He also supported California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state.

During the Warren controversy, Obama -- who frequently spoke out in favor of gay and lesbian rights during the campaign but has said he opposes same-sex marriage -- declared himself "a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans."

So let me get this straight. Our "fierce advocate" is, in a private ceremony in the Oval Office, signing a "memorandum" offering a few limited benefits to the partners of GLBT federal government employees. These benefits will not include health insurance (as we all understand it), and will not include retirement/survivorship benefits. Further, in using a "memorandum" which automatically expires at the end of his term instead of an executive order which must be actively replaced by either Obama or his successor, he is ensuring that these meager little benefits are doomed to be extinguished in 3 1/2 years.

He has not yet uttered a single word about the cowardly DADT stalemate.

He has not yet uttered a single word about the utterly reprehensible and mind-numbingly insulting DOJ brief supporting DOMA.

He has not yet uttered a single word about how he will go about pushing ENDA through the Congress.

He has not yet uttered a single word about the fact that the hate crimes legislation was tacked on to a tourism bill, in an effort to get it passed on the sly without having to take a stand on our equality in the full light of day.

I know it's only been 6 months. I realize these things take time. I was willing to be patient and wait... until this administration, with all its big talk about fierce advocacy, started actively working against my equal civil and human rights. No more waiting.

Man up, or shut up. If Obama doesn't have the courage of his supposed convictions, he'd better get ready to go back to Illinois in 2012... and my vote will be one of the ones that sends him packing.

What. A. Pussy.

Dammit. Damn Damn Damn. I thought I'd have a chance to relax with the political screeds on this blog. I was going to post some pictures of hot guys and maybe talk about Liza for a minute. But noooooooo. Nope. Of course not.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid informed the press yesterday that he has no plans to do anything on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

"I haven't identified any sponsors," he said. "My hope is that it can be done administratively." A Democratic aide later clarified that Reid was speaking about the possibility of using an executive order to suspend discharges or perhaps halting enforcement of the policy by changing departmental regulations within the Department of Defense. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has continually said in recent months that President Barack Obama believes the only "durable solution" to repealing the military's gay ban would be to do so through legislative action.Reid said that if the House moves on its DADT bill, which was introduced in March, only then would he be "happy to take it up."

Note, please, that he didn't say "I couldn't identify any sponsors." He said "I haven't identified any sponsors.". That's no mistake. I'd bet a delicious donut that this spineless, milquetoast little man hasn't even tried to move on this issue. (Of course, asking a mormon to do anything to advance LGBT equality is a futile exercise at best. You might as well ask Dick Cheney to take up interpretive dance.)

70% of Americans support repealing DADT. Seventy percent. Seventy. That includes 58% of conservatives and 60% of weekly churchgoers. The numbers supporting this repeal are stronger than Obama's approval ratings, which are widely touted to be "through the roof". We always hear about how we need to "let the people decide" and all that... of course, we only hear that line when "the people" vote against LGBT equality. In this rare instance, America is saying in a loud, clear voice that this law is unfair.

The voice of the people is not being listened to.

This is another perfect example of how the Democratic party is no longer a progressive entity. It's a little more progressive than the Republicans, which is like saying that Condi Rice is a little less conservative than Dick Cheney.

It is time for the end of the two-party system in this country.

The hope for audacity

Bill Maher is right in this clip, but he makes the assumption that the ideals that Obama has stated are actually things that he privately supports. At least regarding GLBT issues, I have begun to question the validity of his previous statements. One of the smartest people I know said to me the other day, "While he may from time to time mouth vague platitudes, I strongly doubt Obama believes GLBT rights are right and just. He thumbs his nose at us too easily for mere cowardice." With this thought in mind, Maher's plea for less hope and more audacity may fall on intentionally deaf ears.

Revolting.

You know, I could maybe understand the Obama administration's DOJ attorneys arguing that the current case challening DOMA was not strong enough to move forward. But did they really have to argue that Roemer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas shouldn't provide support for the extension of our full civil rights? Did they really have to argue that Loving v. Virginia wasn't salient to the discussion because our civil rights weren't the same as those of African Americans? Did they really have to compare our marriages to those between adults and underage children, or incest?

Americablog was right in that previous presidents (Bush, Reagan) at least filed briefs opposing the current law as unconstitutional, even if they didn't fight too hard for us. "Fierce advocate" indeed.

I'm really getting tired of politicians blowing sunshine up my ass and then ignoring everything that is important to me. Obama's White House has sent trillions to the banks and big business, but hasn't done a thing about Iraq or Afghanistan. He passed the Ledbetter act ensuring equal pay for equal work, which is great for women in this country... but his commitment to equal justice under the law seems to have stopped there. He hasn't uttered more than a couple hollow claims of support for people like me since he was elected... and this was after he claimed to be a "fierce advocate" for GLBT equality. I know I'm on the far left, and the far right has the same kinds of complaints about the Republicans. But sheesh... I really thought Obama was going to be different. Even as I near the ripe old age of 40, I find I have to chastise myself too frequently for gullibility.

My favorite line? "DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits." Jesus tapdancing Christ.


Fuck it. Maybe it's time for a third party. I'll tell you what... it's gonna be a different election for me next time. No more "least revolting option".




Obama's Motion to Dismiss Marriage case

Publish at Scribd or explore others: obama doma