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.

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.

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.

How do you change someone's mind when they're so afraid?

Gentle reader(s), this will undoubtedly be the longest post in the sordid and spotty history of this blog, but it serves an educational purpose. Below, please find my conversation with a guy who's been my friend for 25 years, since middle school. Being from Oklahoma, most of my friends from childhood could be considered relatively conservative and most definitely evangelical Christian. I don't know if I'd ever have a chance to speak this intimately to a fundamentalist unless I'd known him since I was a kid... so I think this conversation was illuminating.

I feel confident in saying that my responses would have been much more pointed and aggressive had I not had a 30 year history with this person. I was struck by the fear in his responses, and by the difficulty he was having in reconciling his antiquated belief system in the face of massive societal upheaval.

Names have been changed to preserve anonymity.

Glen, November 5 at 10:30am

DUDE! I understand that prop 8 is important to you, but what is up with Doug[mutual friend]? he put out a question, I answered it, and he railed on me. Please read what I read, I am sure I did not call him any names or anything. He asked for an opinion/agrument on the other side. Did I do something wrong?


Milkman, November 5 at 10:38am
Hmm... lemme check...


Milkman, November 5 at 11:32am
Oof... okay let's break this down.

You and Doug are coming at the marriage issue from different places, and getting stuck in the middle somewhere. Doug's argument (which is identical to my own) is that there are many kinds of marriages, only some of which are recognized by the church. For example, there are common-law marriages, civil marriages conducted at city hall, marriages officiated by random people who got certified to perform marriages in some screwy onling course, etc. There are drunken quickie marriages in Las Vegas. There are also marriages between divorced Catholics in which the marriage is not recognized by the church. All of these relationships are called "marriage" and are afforded the exact same rights and responsibilities that a marriage blessed by the church enjoys.

You are approaching this issue from the position that marriage is a Biblically-based, religiously-affiliated institution. For you, this is absolutely true. But for many many others, their marriage has nothing to do with Bible teachings. For each example of Biblical precedent for the institution of marriage, there is another example showing that there is equal precedent for marriage as a civil institution. Arguing whether marriage is a Bible-based institution versus a civil/nonreligious one is a moot point, because it's both. It just depends on who you ask.

What Doug appears to be saying is that it's very hard for those whose worldview is very Bible-centered to step back for a second and see the fact that in practice, marriage is and always has been as much a secular institution as well. In debates like the Prop 8 thing, it hits a very personal note. Gay and lesbian people have a long history of being discriminated against... not because we "chose" to be gay, but because that's the way we are. I prayed til my knees were flat, and I'm still a big old queen (and still Christian, if that makes a difference). So when it comes to a process that requires us to go door to door to straight people asking them for "permission" to marry, it sticks in our craw a bit.

Marriage is a human right... so much so that even convicted child molesters and murderers who will never ever see the light of day outside prison again, they are allowed to get married while in prison even though they'll never be able to touch their spouse. So while no one is saying that my partner of 15 years and I should be able to walk into the First Baptist Church and demand to be married by the pastor (churches have always picked and chosen whom they consent to marry, and this is no different) , we should instead have the option of a civil marriage. (There are plenty of churches that would marry us, of course... the Unitariand and the Church of Christ for example... but that's another discussion.)

And no, I don't believe the Bible is the unerrant word of God. I believe God is far too complex and awesome to be explained in a book, especially one that has been monkeyed around with by kings and popes over the centuries as much as the Bible has. And that's okay... there are lots of churches who totally agree with me. There are others who disagree mightily. But that shouldn't matter, as we're not talking about church marriage. We're talking about civil marriage, civil (secular) rights, and equal protection of our relationships under the law. We need this because "civil unions" are not respected in the same way that marriages are. There have been several recent court cases showing that "separate but equal" simply doesn't exist. We need to be able to leave our property to our spouse without being taxed more than straight people. We need to be able to have our wills not be contested by some long-lost fundamentalist relative, and have our spouses kicked out of the house after we die (this happened last year in Wisconsin to a man whose husband died). We need to have access to marriage for the protection of our children, as many states (including Oklahoma) don't recognize gay or lesbian people as adoptive parents. We need to be able to make medical decisions for each other when needed, without having to spend thousands of dollars on legal contracts and protective documents... straight people don't need purchase those, and we shouldn't need to either.

What our arguments come down to is this: our relationships are just as worthy and valid as any heterosexual marriage, and deserve to be treated equally under the civil (secular) law... and also, civil and human rights should never ever be up for popular vote. They are granted to us because of our equal humanity and because we're Americans. Putting our right to marry the people we love to a popular vote is wrong and un-American. That's why it's important for us to have recourse in the courts... not the judges are being "activist", but that they're fulfulling their constitutional role by protecting the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. That's what they're for. Does that makes sense? I usually try to keep a cool head when discussing this issue, as conversations about civil rights, fairness, and religious belief are like maneuvering through a minefield. But if someone asks about it and really wants to know, I think they deserve a reasoned, calm, and respectful answer.


Glen, November 5 at 11:47am
True, your argument does make sense although i disagree with your interpertation of the Bible. My thing is that we would not even have marriage at all if it were not for the Bible. that is where it came from. If people do not believe that, then the debate is virtually moot. True? Believe it or not, I have grown a lot. there is NO WAY I could have this discussion with Doug several years ago. I really do respect his point of view. I just disagree with it.


Milkman, November 5 at 12:07pm
Hiya - Right, we totally disagree on the interpretation of the Bible. And that's totally okay... that's the nice thing about being an American. You can disagree on religious views (and therefore go to different churches... or no church), but still have the same civil (secular) rights. Yes, you're saying that marriage came from the Bible and that we wouldn't have it if it weren't for the Bible. Again, you're coming from a religious position. Marriage has changed throughout the ages, but there has always been the co-existence of religious and secular marriage. There still is today... you have to get a license for marriage from the state, and you have a marriage blessing ceremony at your church. Those are two totally different things.

The debate may be moot from a religious standpoint... either a church's teachings permit same sex marriage or they don't. But the debate is totally not moot when it comes to the other, equally important type of marriage: civil/secular marriage. This has been around for centuries, ever since the institution was created to facilitate transfer of property (the woman) from one man to another. Kinda barbaric by our standards today, but that's what it was about back then. These days, it's the civil marriage that confers the legal rights and responsibilities, not the religious one. And that's what we're fighting to have recognized.

Don't get frustrated... it's really nice that you're asking and wanting to know. So many religiously conservative people go through life with blinders on and don't ever want to learn or understand. I wish there were more folks with your curiosity.


Glen, November 5 at 12:14pm
I can agree with the barbarism of property transfer and health and medical issues. My issue deals with what I wrote in my last post to Doug. If it were that simple, yes, equality. I will ask you to look at it from my perspective(not the radicals who call you names) (me, Glen) I am asked to be tolerant, and respectful of other views. I can not state my beliefs, that makes me a radical Christian. I can not say that I do not agree with a certain life style, that makes me narrow minded. I can not say that I believe in creationism, that makes me ignorant. From my perspective every time I am tolerant of one more idea, belief, or lifestyle that I do not agree with, I lose more and more of my voice or the right to speak up for what I believe in. MY personal thought is.. what is next? tolerance in what can be preached in my church? That is how I feel. For every inch given I lose two. When is enough going to be enough? Is never no more no less, it seems to always be more


Milkman, November 5 at 12:42pm
I hear ya... and I'm also hearing some frustration and a little fear when it comes to the changing face of society. It's something I'm noticing in conservative America, this tendency to want to put the brakes on. Socially, things are changing pretty fast from an historical stanpoint.

About beliefs, I think it's a stretch to say that you can't state your Christian beliefs for fear of persecution... especially in Texas, right? I imagine it's pretty safe to be a conservative Christian there. My first instinct is to say that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism... yes, you can be criticized for your ideas just like I can, and that includes your religious opinions if you choose to air them publicly. (That's why I'm always so private about mine, because my spiritual opinions are between me and God.) But if someone tries to keep you from saying something you believe in, then that's patently wrong.

First off, believing in a lifestyle... I always think "who am I to approve or disapprove of someone else's life?" If someone says they disapprove of me being gay, then yes, they deserve criticism because unless we're sleeping together it has nothing to do with them. Creationism is something that shouldn't be taught in public school science classes, but no one should tell you you can't teach it at home or at church. And if anyone ever tried to tell your pastor what to preach on Sunday, I'd totally call bullshit.

But your central issue seems to be the sensation that you're being pressured to accept and understand things that are hard for you to accept and understand without a little discussion about it first, which is understandable. Yes, society has changed, but there is still room for a conservative or religious voice. It's just that the tacit assumption that this voice is the only valid or acceptable one is beginning to relax. Conservative Christianity, from a political perspective, has been hard to deal with for people who don't believe in that. Many times, we hear that the fundamentalist viewpoint is the only valid one, and that we'd better get right with God or burn in hell. Preachers in some churches and on TV whip their followers into a frenzy, resulting in very real prejudice and violence, as well as civil rights issues like the one we're talking about. This means that the majority of gay guys like myself (and Doug) grew up associating religious conservatives with a lot of extremely painful events and feelings, which I guess explains why calm discussions are difficult to facilitate. What many Christians have trouble understanding is how to articulate their position without insisting that theirs is the ONLY valid position. You can obviously do it... but many others can't.


Glen, November 6 at 3:25pm
It is called listening. Which with age has become easier to do. I certainly DO NOT place you, Doug, our other gay glassmates, and assuming your partner, in the same category as the SUPER RADICAL groups who are and were attacking the supporters of Prop 8. I know that is not you, no more than I am in the James Dobson SUPER RADICAL group. As I had told Doug in my last post. If it was as Doug stated, just a Marriage certificate or Marriage rights and nothing more, nothing less, that would be drastically different. It is the Radical fringe that gets one thing and wants to take two or three(from my perspective). This is what scares me. When IS enough? My feeling is that I have to defend my rights as a Christian just so that I will continue to have them. couple of questions. Do you feel a Preacher shoudl have the ability to refuse to marry a gay couple if he does not agree?


Glen, November 6 at 3:30pm
another question, This "fairness Doctrine" what is your opinion? I am having trouble understanding why a Christian radio station, Conservative station, Liberal station, or Gay/Lesbian station should be MADE to air or display every and all views even if they are contrary to the theme of the station. If everyone has a station why do they need to equal out everyone? I do not get it?


Milkman, November 6 at 3:59pm
This is a touchy subject, as I'm still smarting from the election results. One actually CAN and SHOULD place me in the same group as those who feel extremely bitter resentment toward those who supported Prop 8. One can also include my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother-in-law, all of my co-workers, and many of my partner's family in that category too. My dad can't hardly even talk about it without getting his blood pressure up. And actually, the marriage I'm talking about really IS just a marriage certificate and the accompanying civil rights. That's all we want. Really. If "civil unions" were offered the same respect and secular recognition as the word "marriage", then that would be fine too... but they aren't. Recent lawsuits from the last couple years show that to be true.

That said, I think a preacher should absolutely be able to refuse to marry any couple he or she chooses, gay or straight, just like they've always been able to do. Catholic priests refuse to marry couples all the time... if one's divorced, for example. Even if both have never been married, a couple still can't have a full mass for their wedding service if one of them is Protestant. It's the way it's always been, and I support it as long as there are no public funds going to their organization(s). If you don't like the way a church runs their business, either work to change it from within, or go to another church. Or don't go to church at all, and work it out individually.

The FCC's "fairness doctrine" is problematic for me, too. The idea that any and all opinions should be treated as being equally valid is difficult to enforce, given the fact that many opinions are based on hatred, bigotry, misinformation, psychosis, or any number of other bizarre things. I do think that broadcast stations, since they are using the airwaves provided for free by the American people, should do their best to ensure truthful coverage of issues like this. But given the fact that most broadcasters are owned by for-profit corporations and therefore have ulterior motives, I can't say it'll work very well.

Listening is awesome, and it's hard to do sometimes. But some things are really not statements that deserve attention and patient listening. It's so hard for me to listen to people telling me my partner and I are an abomination, disgusting, not deserving of equal rights, dangerous to children, shameful, perverted, sick... and those are just the things I've read today. This is the reason why I don't go home to our home town very often. Growing up hearing those things, day in and day out, not just from kids in my class but from adults in the community that I was taught to respect, did a number on me that took years and years to un-do. I totally understand what was going through [our gay classmate who killed himself in high school] Mike's head before he did what he did, because it was going through mine too. And [Mike's boyfriend] Jay's. And it's not because Mike was sick in the head, it's because all he heard when he was growing up was that God hated him and he was going to hell unless he changed something about himself that he knew he would never be able to change.

So when I start to see so many people voting and working to grant people like Mike and Jay and [gay classmate] Lance and me equal marriage rights, it makes me honestly need to sit down for a minute and digest the shocked relief... I thought maybe, finally, we're moving in a direction where full participation in the community is possible. And when I see these efforts stymied by bajillions of dollars spent by the LDS church on ads that were specifically designed to whip up hatred and fear by disseminating outright, bald-faced lies about people like me... it makes me want to throw up. Wanna know why there's a stereotype of gay guys as alcoholic drug addicts? That's why. I know you're not a Dobson-ite. And you're awesome for that. I wish more conservative Christians had kind hearts and open minds.


Glen, November 6 at 4:19pm
not to make light of the discussion, but I do not like going back to our home town either. Talk about circa 1950's. I hated Mike for SO LONG for doing what he did. I felt it was so selfish. I then realized I was selfish for my feelings. Honestly I grew up with the same thing. It is kinda funny. I heard someone ask what is up with our home town? It goes on here in Texas. I love to cook, keep myself in good shape, basically picked out and decorated our home, picked out the tile and granite. I help my wife when it comes to shoes and clothes, I do not personally own any Prada shoes but the majority of my shoes are Johnson & Murphy and Bostonian, and Clarke.....Should I be worried? I have friends at Church that tell me I am REALLY in touch with my femenine side........I just really like those things, not that there is anything wrong with that.....


Milkman, November 6 at 4:36pm
Yeah I was mad at Mikee too, but at the time I was more scared than mad because I knew that there but for the grace of God went I. If my family hadn't been as awesome as they are, I feel confident in saying that that would most certainly have happened to me. Thank God I graduated right after that... college, even though it was in our home town, felt as though I had left an airtight room for the first time, and I could breathe.

And yeah, you do have just a little bit of sugar in your tank. That's okay, it makes you attractive to the ladies. Women generally just love us. It's interesting though... the majority of gay guys here in Wisconsin look exactly like the rough guys back home. Buzz cut, Carhartt jeans, work boots, tshirts or thermals... very butch. I'm thinking of my friend who's an electrician, and his partner, who's a security guard. Not a lot of Prada shoe-wearing homos out here. It's kind of nice.


Milkman, November 6 at 4:44pm
Another thing. You've mentioned "what is enough" a couple times... what is it that you're afraid that the left is going to take from you, other than your money in taxes?

Loading...

Glen, November 6 at 8:00pm
well specifically my religious freedom. For example, my right to listen to christian radio music/talk, my right to listen to a conservative radio program, my right not to have to listen to a liberal radio program, my right to pray when I want, and where I want my right to read my Bible silently when I want and where I want, my right to make the Final decisions about what my children learn and do not learn according to my values. When a father is handcuffed and arrested by a school board because he was not agreeing with what they were teaching his child and that they would not let him opt his child out.(true story) That is too far.

If I chose to raise my child in a Christian home and that child is taught to pray, and that child wants to pray before lunch, a test, that child should not be singled out, or suspended, or punished if that child is not harming anyone. I do not want to be mandated or forced by law to accept or honor things that are not in accordance with my values or beliefs. That is VERY VERY different than understanding, respecting, tolerating different views and lifestyles choices.I have great respect for you and your ability to make a decision that you feel is right for you. Who am I to tell you that YOU ARE WRONG even though I may disagree with your choice. The Bible I talk about even says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." "Judgement comes from the father above."Believe me, that is NOT a job I want!!!!I also do not want others to do it to ME!!! Excatally as you do not. I guess it interestingly boils down to something similar to what you feel (I think). I feel that the rights I have are in jeopardy of being taken away and it scares me because I feel that if I let go of even one I will lose them all. Do you feel that you have NO rights, and that to get even one must cast a wide net?


Milkman, November 9 at 12:08pm
Gosh, that's a lot of fear. I don't remember you being this afraid before. I'm not sure who told you that you needed to be, but all this fear is pretty misplaced. You're assuming that freedom and liberty are a zero-sum game, with one group gaining rights at the expense of the other. It's not that way. No one's trying to keep you from listening to or reading whatever you want. The father you mentioned is well within his rights to take his kid out of school when he wants to ... I don't know the whole story there, but that's what I'd surmise was the outcome. And I'm relatively certain that school boards can't arrest people, so there's that. If your kid wants to pray in school by himself before a test or say grace before lunch, who's going to stop him? The only time this is a problem is when kids who aren't Christian feel pressured, and one kid praying before a test doesn't constitute pressure. You went to a school that didn't allow prayer, and you turned out fine because your parents were involved and encouraged your spiritual growth at home and in Sunday school. Do you see Christians being rounded up and put into jail in other countries where marriage is equal? Spain? The Netherlands? Norway? South Africa? Canada? Nope. It's all working fine, and everyone, including conservative Christians, is okay.

You also keep mentioning a choice. I'd let it go, but you've mentioned it a few times. There was no choice. I know the church tells you there was, but please believe me that there wasn't. I'd totally admit it if there had been one, but there wasn't. This is the way I was made. People knew I was gay in third grade, before I even knew. No choice was made. I prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed for God to make me not Gay... who'd want to grow up gay in Stillwater? But even after praying 'til my knees were flat... still gay. So through lots of prayer and soul-searching, I finally came to the realization that God wants me to be just the way I am. No choice for me, just like there wasn't one for you. And it's not a lifestyle. It's my life. If I became celibate today and for the rest of my life, or if I married a woman tomorrow and stayed married until I died, I'd still be gay.

The only thing that anyone would be forced or mandated to do would be to treat others equally under the law even if their church doesn't think they should have to. This is because we don't live in a theocracy. Human and civil rights should never be up for popular vote... that's why the founding fathers gave us separation of church and state as well as an independent judiciary... to protect the religious from excessive state interference, and to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority.

And what's this about having "no rights" and "getting even"? Of course that's not what's happening. That's silly. Every American has the same rights, it's just that some Americans are allowed to exercise all of them while others are not. It's a question of fairness, not "getting even". Again, it's not a zero-sum game. For me to have equal protection under the law doesn't cost conservative Americans a single bit of their existing liberty. They can go on thinking I'm going to go to hell all they want. They can keep refusing to recognize my relationship in their churches. They can raise their kids any way they see fit. But when their right to religious expression starts to bleed into my right to equal treatment under the law, then the law must win out. And if gays were to really "get even", there's be a whole lot of violence and bloodshed to atone for the centuries of church-encouraged systematic misery and violence against us, including the holocaust, the crusades, the middle ages. Where would we stop? It would be absurd to even try to do something like that.

So no, it's not like I have "No Rights". Despite the fact that gay people are still killed in hate crimes frequently in this country, I know I've got it better than those poor young gay boys who were hanged in Iran this past year. I've got it better than the gays in Jamaica who are hunted down and beaten by angry mobs, most recently this past summer. I've got it better than the gays who are even now being put to death in Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. But does the fact that I'm not being hunted down and killed by my own government mean that I should be satisfied with anything less than the equal treatment under the law that my country's constitution promises?


Glen, November 10 at 1:03pm
You are right, but at times it does feel like a zero-sum game. Please accept my apology, I believe I may have offended you by using the word choice and lifestyle. I understand and accept that to you it was not a choice, and it is your life, not "a lifestyle." Life is life, mine is different than yours, is different than John or Jane Doe. Actually Christians are being jailed in some of those countries, and especially in Far East and Central Asia. Unfortuantely persecution has gone on since the beginning of time. The majority of which has been religious.

It seems to me, in my very very small mind that the persecution in many different countries is because of differences in beliefs and that violate laws. some countries it is aginst the law to be a christian, as I am understanding that it is aginst the Muslim faith to be homosexual? In this country, USA I get the feeling that most of the persecution is out of many of the same fears that I shared with you. Oh, lets not forget to add the word ignorrance. Fear and Ignorrance.Do me a favor, see if you can find the story about the sermon at FBC Dallas this past Sunday. What was reported(slanted I'm sure") was that Pastor Robert Jefferess preached on Homosexuality, and protestors peacfully protested out front that it was noting but hate speech. I also want to ask you some other questions I have. Unless you are tired of typing yet.


Milkman, November 10 at 1:42pm
I figured that's what you meant. And yes, Christians are being jailed in some of the same countries I mentioned. Under sharia law (muslim religious law), gays and lesbians are to be put to death in the most horrible ways imaginable. There was a photo or two smuggled out of Iran last year showing two 18 year old guys being hanged, and it's real hard for me to get that image out of my head. Yeah, the fear that you mentioned is something that was surprising to me. I really have been thinking about that this past weekend, wondering if maybe in addition to the hate (of which there's plenty), maybe there's just as much fear. That does kind of change how one would deal with a disagreement...

I heard about the FBC protest, and I'm glad that it was peaceful. It's hard to remain peaceful when emotions are running so high. But this is an example of how I would totally support the right of that pastor to preach whatever he wanted, while I also support the right of the protestors to voice their opinion. The pastor's blunder was that he listed the sermon's title on the public message board, which infuriated the public. This is a good example of a Biblically-justifiable but increasingly socially unacceptable bias. As long as we're a secular nation populated by lots of religious folks, we're going to get that kind of problem. I think it's okay to have that dichotomy as long as it doesn't urge people to become violent.

You can always ask me anything. :-)


Glen, November 10 at 1:55pm
Many/most Christians are aginst gay couples from adopting or having kids for many reasons. Here are the top ones. Forcing a lifestyle on them. Forcing them to do things they do not want to. Telling them that God is evil. Not giving them a sexual preference choice. Allowing them to observe sexual behavior that they should not. Making them be gay. Not accepting tem if they chose hetrosuality. Slanting life as to where the hate Christians. These are just some off of the top of my head. NOW, I never said that I believe any or all of these, but I will be honest many of these thoughts have crossed my mind. I have a difficult time seeing you forcing much of anything upon anyone that did not want it. That does not seem to be your nature, as I remember it.


Milkman, November 10 at 4:40pm
Well I'll tell ya... I know lots of gay or lesbian parents. To a person, they are all passionate about parenting... which they'd have to be given how much it costs and how hard it is to adopt or conceive. Parenting is parenting, no matter who does it... it's hard work, people make mistakes sometimes, and people need help (especially single parents). You can't possibly believe many of these concerns, given the fact that you know some gay people and know that we're not like that... but let's go through them one by one.

Forcing a lifestyle on them.

All parents do this. Kids are born to individuals who have lives of their own. Gay parents don't "force their lifestyle" on anyone, any more than straight parents do. Honestly, I really wouldn't know how to force my lifestyle (I hate that word) on anyone, even if I tried.

Forcing them to do things they do not want to.

What parent doesn't do that? It's called discipline. No kid wants to clean their room or wear clean underwear, but we force them to do it. Is that what you meant? Or are you talking about forcing a kid to do something sexual? That is a felony, and those people should be prosecuted and then killed. I know thousands of gay men and lesbians, and have never not once known a single one that was even rumored to be a pedophile. That's a really mean stereotype that has no basis in fact. All reputable research shows that most pedophiles are straight, simply because there are more straight people in the world. The percentage of the population is about the same on both sides, which means it's very rare.

Telling them that God is evil.

I don't know any GLBT parents who would do that. I've actually never heard of that happening. Not giving them a sexual preference choice.Well, given that it's not a choice, that's not possible. Even if it were, that choice is not appropriate for a child. If someone were to "decide to be gay" or whatever, that's a choice they'd have to make as an adult. But again, seeing as how it's not a choice, it is a moot point.

Allowing them to observe sexual behavior.

Sexualization of children is wrong, no matter who does it. That's not a worry just about GLBT parents, but about all adult-child interactions. Some things are not appropriate for kids... ever... and observing sexual acts is one of those things. This concern assumes that we're all sex-crazed, which isn't any more true for gays than it is for straights.

Making them be gay.

If I knew how to do that, a couple of our hotter classmates would be gay right now. Again, it's how you're made. No one can make anyone be gay, even kids. Likewise, no one can make anyone be straight... no matter how hard they pray on it. You can change behavior... like whether someone's celibate or not... but you can't change orientation.

Not accepting them if they're straight.

They wouldn't be a very good parent, then... would they? All the parents I know just assume that their kid will be straight. The law of averages supports that assumption. Every one of them tells me "I just want him/her to be happy and safe."

Slanting life as to where they hate Christians.

Most parents I know are either Christian themselves, or non-religious in a pretty benign way. The only way my kid will grow up hating Christians is if he sees Christians treating me, my partner, or his mom with contempt and hatred. There really isn't an effort to make kids hate Christians... most non-religious parents just don't care one way or another. They have more pressing things to worry about.

Wow. You've heard some scary shit about us. Remember... we're more alike than we are unalike. You mention that you don't think I'd be the type to do something like (xxx)... that's because we grew up together and you know me. I'm actually very similar to most GLBT people. You'd be shocked at how boring the lives of most gay and lesbian people are. Shocked. :-)


Glen, November 11 at 11:58am
Yes, and no, not really. I actually figured that most of it was hype mostly to freak Christians out and implant the fear bug. I am sure there are some ridiculous things that are blanketed over all Christians as well. You are right I do know you and I certainly did not ever place you under any of those suspicions.

When I boil this down and iron it out, I see the two main glaring things that we differ completely on are my conviction that people are not created gay, and your conviction that people are. My belief that the Bible is the complete inspired word of God without error, and you belief that it is not. Those might be two Mountains almost as high as Everest. I would be happy to discuss and debate them with you sometime.Your still the same friend I knew and grew up with, hopefully I have improved over the years.


Milkman, November 11 at 12:09pm
Yes, most of those concerns are pretty ridiculous, motivated by hate and fear of course... but that's the kind of thing that dehumanizes us and makes it therefore "okay" to discriminate against us or inflict violence against us. When a person doesn't recognize someone's equal humanity, then it's a lot easier to do terrible things to them without remorse, or in the name of Christian love.

In my case, being gay wasn't a choice. But even if it were a choice, this is America. I should still be able to choose to live any way I want to without losing my equal treatment under the law. It's the same with religion, which most certainly is a choice. You should be able to go to whatever church you want to and not lose your civil rights. As long as you're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?

Same thing with the Bible. There are lots of churches that don't believe that the Bible is the unerrant, complete word of God, and they're still considered Christian churches. That's a theologic difference that shouldn't make a hill of beans worth of difference when it comes to equal rights.

It just comes down to fairness, and an understanding that civil marriage recognition will in no way change what churches recognize and accept. The two kinds of marriage are separate entities. I really think there's room for more understanding between gay folks and conservative religious folks. Lots and lots of gay people are also Christian... we're more alike than we are unalike. It sure is hard to deny us the benefits of civil marriage when that fact is recognized.

It may seem like Christians are being trod upon right now, and perhaps rightly so because of the political activities of various individual demoninations. But there really isn't any reason to be afraid of gays getting married. We have every intention of being just as boring as all other married folks.

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.

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

"It's like watching the 700 Club and the Weather Channel at the same time."

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Schadenfreude, but with a little hope

Jermaine Jakes, shown below, is the son of Dallas evangelist T.D. Jakes, shown above. Jakes Pere has long been an opponent of equal civil and human rights for GLBT people. He has said that he would never employ an openly gay person. He has publicly and actively opposed any and all attempts to provide equal protection under the law for GLBT people, and has referred to homosexuality in general as a form of "brokenness". Jakes Fils, by contrast, was recently arrested in a public park sex sting, as described below by the Dallas Morning News:

"Jermaine Donnell Jakes, 29, faces a charge of indecent exposure after allegedly exposing himself in front of two undercover vice detectives shortly after 10 p.m. on Jan. 3. Senior Cpl. Janice Crowther, a DPD spokeswoman, confirmed Thursday, Feb. 12 that the detectives were both male. According to an arrest affidavit, the detectives were conducting an investigation into citizen complaints of sexual activity when they observed Jakes and several other unknown males park their vehicles in the lot east of the park at 2106 W. Kiest Blvd. The detectives followed Jakes into a wooded area, where he approached them with his penis exposed through his unzipped pants, the affidavit states. Jakes masturbated for several seconds while making eye contact with one of the detectives. Jakes made no attempt to conceal his penis despite people walking and jogging on a trail nearby, the affidavit states. According to court records, Jermaine Jakes listed his place of employment as T.D. Jakes Ministries."

I'm not a big fan of sex stings. I think that as long as the only people involved or affected are consenting adults, and as long as no tangible damage results from such activities, people should be able to have sex wherever they want. I also think that bathhouses and sex clubs provide a needed service in that they are some of the best ways for guys who prefer recreational/casual sex to get off without fear of arrest or bashing (or worse). But I can't say I didn't initially snicker when I heard about the fact that this notoriously homophobic snake oil salesman has a son with a little sugar in his tank. One of my favorite things is a little Schadenfreude associated with people who hate me. In the past few years as the Potemkin village of baby-boomer Christo-fascism has started to wither in the United States, I've had many opportunities to enjoy watching these homophobes choke on their own well-publicized hypocrisy.

But then I stopped for a second to consider the position in which Jakes Fils finds himself today. I've known lots of gay preacher's kids, and to a man they have all been damaged as a result of their upbringing. All of them have demonstrated a thoroughly fucked-up sense of self-agency and sexual self-worth, and all of them have vascillated between periods of time characterized by a highly toxic fundamentalism and short bursts of often self-destructive compensatory behaviors. It's as though they had never known love that was not heavily laden with judgement and tethered to the earth by disappointment, desperation, and fear. The only way I got through my own adolescence was the knowledge that my family and friends loved me no matter what. Bishop Jakes' son, on the other hand, knew full well that no matter how virtuously he lived his life, his father (if he knew the truth) would always view him as "broken". That kind of bone-crushing loneliness is hard to comprehend, but it's something that Jakes Fils lived with every day.

It makes me wonder what his response was to his arrest... could he, deep down, have been rejoicing that his secret was finally out in the open? Could he possibly feel a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, his life could have turned toward the sun as a result of this single, unexpected incident? After living for 29 years thinking that his life's story had already been written for him by a man whose career was based on the subjugation and dehumanization of gay people, could he be trembling with the scary but exciting prospect of actually living as an honest, open, and respectable gay man?

I hope this is true. I hope that this guy is able to use this incident to facilitate a new path. There's light at the end of that tunnel, and it's not a train.

Required watching.

Busted.

Rick Warren can kiss my pasty faggot ass. So can his god. He doesn't pray to the god I know.

I am so sick of hearing about his meteoric rise to prominence as "America's pastor". Who dubbed this Saddleback megachurch-shilling toad as my spiritual leader?

Let me break it down for you.

He has repeatedly equated gay and lesbian relationships with incest and pedophilia. When offered the chance to amend or recant these absurdities, he refused.

His wife said multiple times on national television that she thought that because AIDS in the United States was considered a "homosexual disease" that that meant she didn't have to care. Let me quote her... "I thought that meant that I didn't have to care." The only thing that made her give a shit about people with AIDS was the initiative through their church to combat HIV and AIDS in Africa, which affects mostly heterosexuals.

The Saddleback church initiatives in Africa are aligned with the most stridently right-wing politicians and clergy, and are focused on abstinence education. No condoms. No safer-sex education. Nothing but abstinence education, which has been shown to be ineffective.

The Saddleback church is providing a refuge for those right-wing Episcopal churches who have broken from the Anglican communion because they couldn't bear to imagine having gay or lesbian clergy or members. In leaving the Anglicans, they forfeited the property and money that were provided by the larger church. How lovely that they have found a fellow ham-fisted homophobe who just happens to own a huge mall-like megachurch.

And yet, Warren continues to tell me that he loves me. You know what, Rick? Fuck you. Take your fake-ass pseudo-Christian love and shove it up your pock-marked pasty Jello-like ass. I am sick to death of Christians who have the audacity to call me a pedophile and then in the same breath tell me that they love me. Warren clearly doesn't understand what love means.

If you love me, you consider me your equal. If you love me, you'll respect my relationship as being equal in value to your own. If you love me, you'll be a full-throated advocate for my equal human and civil rights. If you love me, you'll do the same for those unfortunate souls who live in the Middle East, or eastern Europe, or Africa. If you love me, you'll oppose all these terrible amendments to state constitutions that are nothing more than a last-ditch effort by small-minded bigots to rail against a societal change that has already and irrevocably happened.

Rick Warren's invitation to serve in a prominent position in the Inaugural celebration is unacceptable, but is also inevitable now. I don't expect Obama to dis-invite him. I also don't think that Obama's invitation to Gene Robinson and the Washington DC Gay Men's Chorus in any way compensates for his cozying up to this bigoted fool. There are plenty of evangelicals who have shown more compassion and more understanding of humanity than Warren, and yet he was invited anyway.

Rick, you can take your "Christian" love and stuff it.