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

I think I'll start in Shorewood.

Beautiful ad. Unfortunately it's hitting the nail right on the head.

Just so everyone knows... my equal civil and human rights do not have the approval of straight people as a prerequisite. It's nice that some approve, but it's irrelevant. My rights are mine by right of being a human being and an American.

We'll win in the end. We will. Time is marching steadily in our favor. But oh, how the need to be patient causes dyspepsia.

Let him eat cake.

I'm baaaa-aaaack...

Actually, I never really left. Just took a break and tried to work through some blogger's block. Funny, that. I had so many things to talk about that I just couldn't focus on anything.

So here's what stuck in my craw this week.

This unspeakably hot man is Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach.









He's the son and brother of Air Force officers, has served our country honorably for 18 years, and is the winner of nine air medals for distinguished service in flight. One of those was for heroism during the capture of the Baghdad International Airport. Yes, kids. That means that he really is a documented and certified American Hero©.


And he's being kicked out of the Air Force for being gay.


No, he didn't come out. He was ratted out by some low-life asswipe. He played by the Don't Ask Don't Tell rules. For 18 years he didn't tell. He kept his life private. Say what you want about the value of coming out... it's different for military folk. But now he's being drummed out of the job he loves... a job he's been doing honorably for you and for me for 18 years. And, God love him, he took that square on the chin, came out to his mom and sister, went on Rachael Maddow's show last week, and started to fight.

Listen, kittens. We're 8 years into two wars (one or both of which may or may not be 100% legal... but that's another discussion). We're scrambling to keep skilled servicemembers on active duty. 70% of Americans think that gay and lesbian people should be able to serve openly in our military. Obama promised during his campaign to end the ban, or at least issue an executive order stopping the active enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell pending legislation to rescind that bigoted law. And THIS is what the President and the Pentagon are doing?


Exactly what kind of pussy is afraid to serve with a gay man? What do these little bitches think Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is going to do to them in the shower? Bitch please. You should BE so lucky. And honey, he's been there for 18 years. If he was gonna pull some bullshit, he'd have done it by now. What he DID do was serve with unequivocal excellence and heroism for the better part of two decades. Maybe that's the problem... straight guys and their itty bitty penises egos can't possibly withstand being shown up by a fag, even a big, strapping, delicious, decorated, professional one like Fehrenbach.

Okay fine. Slim Jim has been in office for only four months. He has wars to wage, a global financial meltdown to manage, and Supreme Court justices to nominate. I get it. His plate is full. People say we should be patient... that we should wait... that we should give him a chance.

I've been doing that. I've been patient. But really... DADT is low-hanging fruit. The vast majority of the American public supports its repeal (and doesn't the military work for us?). An executive order halting the process wouldn't trump the law of the land, it would just stop the hemorrhaging and give lawmakers a chance to breathe while they craft the appropriate legislation for its repeal. It would also shut the GLBT activists up for a second.

But is that what Slim Jim is doing? Of course not. The only public statements he's made about any issue related to GLBT equality have been jokes. Jokes. First making a joke about marrying David Axelrod in Iowa (at the White House Correspondents' Dinner), and most recently at a Democratic fundraiser in L.A. where he quipped that after a gay rights protester outside yelled that he should keep his promises, he wondered what promise the guy was talking about.

Um, how about any of them? They're listed on the White House website. Maybe Sasha can pull that up for you on her laptop and you can read them while she finishes her breakfast.

(Thanks to a correction from an anonymous commenter, it appears that the comment outside the L.A. fundraiser may have been shouted by someone expressing their desire for Obama to acknowledge the Armenian genocide rather than by a marriage equality advocate. I didn't know that there even was an Armenian genocide, but then again I'm hardly a historian. It was a horrific war crime committed by the Ottoman empire around 1915. Not sure what Obama's supposed to do about that almost 100 years later, and it's not clear that his joke was made with the knowledge of the questioner's affiliation. I stand tentatively corrected on that point, but my point about Obama's deafening silence and documented jokes at our expense still stands.)

There's never a convenient time to extend equal civil and human rights to any minority. Never. If he's waiting for a perfect political and social climate to make good on his promise to be our "fiercest advocate", then he might as well wait for a flying unicorn to drop ice cream turds on the White House lawn. Not gonna happen. Man up, Mr. President. Our patience is wearing rather thin. Much more stalling, silence, and insensitive jokes, and we'll start thinking we've been bamboozled in the most craven and calculated of ways.

Or maybe we're thinking that already.

A basic civics lesson, perhaps a titch delayed

Finally, the voice of reason in a sea of dissent. Regarding the California supreme court's decision to overturn marriage discrimination in that state, and the blubbering response of the right wing to that decision:

"That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court's decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds. "

Read the rest of Glenn Greenwald's excellent essay here. No, really... go there now and read it.

Arrogance masquerading as humility.

This clip from the Bill Maher show, featuring Dan Savage (one of my favorites) in the role of roving reporter at the South Carolina Republican primary, includes an insightful discussion about the role of born-again religion in the political life of this country.


A particularly important statement, again from Dan Savage, is one that C and I have talked about for years but which we rarely hear expressed on any public forum:


"People only pretend to read the Bible... their eyes tend to glaze over and they remember certain passages that they ignore when they feel like ignoring them (like "turn the other cheek") and when they don't like somebody, they go flipping through this massive book full of ancient desert prejudices looking for something to justify it..."


All this is in response to Barack Obama's recent speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in honor of MLK day, in which he said:


"And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity."Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation."


I'm happy that he mentioned us, but my reticent attitude about Obama stems not just from the squalid Donnie McClurkin fracas, but more from a generalized sensation that Obama just isn't quite credible on GLBT issues. I've always harbored a sneaking sensation that Obama is just feeding our GLBT advocacy folks what they want to hear, just enough to keep them off his back long enough to get through the election. It's what Bill Clinton did, it's what Hillary is doing, it's what Edwards is doing (though I get a slightly more sincere vibe from him), and it's probably what Obama is doing.


I don't deserve equal marriage rights because I hate God or because I want to destroy the family. I just want the civil benefits that come with civil marriage, for purely practical reasons. I don't need anyone else telling me that my relationship is valid, because after 14 years I think it's pretty clear that our bond is as strong as any straight marriage. What I want from a marriage certificate is the legal standing to demand that we are afforded equal legal standing regarding health care and financial decision-making.


I don't deserve these things because the majority of Americans think I deserve them. I don't deserve them because God loves me, or because I'm as good as the born-agains (I think I'm better, actually). I deserve them because I'm a human being, and an American. Simple as that.


Straight voters, when pressed with this argument, would be forced to decide whether the word "equal" has only one meaning, or whether it has multiple meanings depending on the voter's biases. It would force voters to confront their own prejudices, without the ability to make mealy-mouthed statements of theoretical support while voting to keep us down. I acknowledge that we might lose this one in the short run... but it will help to emphasize how deeply these prejudices lie within the hearts of the American people.