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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In which The Milkman gets on his soapbox. Again.

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





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





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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

Jon Stewart impresses again.

Why is it that Jon Stewart managed to make a stronger argument for marriage equality than Rachael Maddow? Even though she's newer to punditry, it's certainly a more personal issue for her.

Stewart:"Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. We protection religion - and talk about a lifestyle choice - that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay. At what point did you choose not to be gay? ... I think it's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case."

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

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.