How Do You Solve a Problem like Marcus?

A queer colleague of mine brought up this article about the potential problems of calling Marcus Buchmann out as gay.  The concerns about what this rhetoric potentially does is important to examine and take seriously.

It's been popular among (at least the gay blogosphere) to point out Marcus Buchmann's more effeminte qualities, including but not limited to the nickname "Ladybird," which I do find fairly amusing.  As with most things, the rhetorical strategy, politics and rationale behind such a move are complex. 

On the Baby Boomer Generation

This really is a gross oversimplification, but the following quote really does capture the gestalt of my feelings on how the baby boom generation as a whole (there are always exceptions) has really impacted the world (and continues to do so):

For all that Baby Boomers fetishise “the Sixties” as some mythical time when everything was perfect – not realising that it’s their own generation who have pretty comprehensively fucked the world up for those of us who are following them, by pulling the ladder up after themselves – they did have the luck to be a giant demographic bubble of youth at precisely the point when this could almost sensibly seem true. The ‘long 1960s’ (from roughly the Suez crisis to the OPEC crisis) were built on cheap oil, and that meant everything from cheap plastic consumer items to cheap transport. The Western world was rich and (other than Vietnam) at peace, and that meant an explosion in possibilities, ... After the OPEC crisis all this changed. We can’t afford hopes and dreams any more. To do that the Boomers would have to make sacrifices.

From, of all places, a commentary on Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: 1969 over at the Mindless Ones.

Truly Offensive

As a general rule, I don't talk about Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum (or Sarah Palin for that matter).  None of these individuals are serious contenders for the Republican nomination given their extreme viewpoints and stances.  They are odious individuals who don't deserve any kind of attention.  But Bachmann and Santorum have sunk to new lows by signing the Family Leader (an Iowa based conservative organization) "Marriage Vow."  In terms of gay rights, it's all same old, same old.  What is truly offensive is that the pledge asserts that Black people were better off under slavery than they are today.

The pledge contains plenty of other objectionable material, but the racist language of the pledge takes the cake. MSNBC covers the story:

The Same Old Stuff PLUS Michigan AFA: Gays are employment risks

I don't usually post much from the likes of the AFA (American Family Association) or its ilk (e.g., the Traditional Values Coalition,  Family Research Council, Exodus International, Catholic League, National Organization for Marriage); the rhetoric is pretty much the same regardless of the organization or event to which these groups respond. 

Why I'm Not Gaga over "Born This Way"

Perhaps it's fitting that the .99 sale of Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" album on Amazon crashed their servers, or at least slowed them down.  It's an apt metaphor for the way "born this way" rhetoric has crashed, or at least slowed down, gay and lesbian liberationist politics. 

It's tempting to simply quote Eve Sedgwick and Michael Warner on this topic and leave it at that: they said it first and best. A politic built on an essentialistic conceptualization of sexual orientation (that is, the idea that one's sexual orientation is natural, established pre-self-awareness, and stable and unchanging) does not guarantee one success and cannot be certain to result in the type of outcomes that those employing it certainly seek to achieve.  Of course, neither can one build on a social construction theory of sexuality.  Neither argument guarantees that rights will be granted or that others will conceed on moral or rational grounds.

Goldie Taylor on "how far we have not come"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What Marriage Equality Does Not Do

Quoted on the Washington Post's blog was this statement, from a woman thrilled to be marrying her partner:

"We're whole now. We will actually be a true family just like everyone else."

No, sorry, you're not. Perhaps I should not argue the semantics of this statement, but rather take it in the spirit it was likely intended, but this is a dangerous line of thought.

While I firmly believe that the failure to permit same-sex couples to enjoy the legal rights and benefits bestowed upon opposite-sex couples is a form of legalized discrimination and oppression, in no way do I think that it legitimizes my relationship. My family is ALREADY true and whole, as much so as anyone's family is. The fact that it is not legally recognized does not change its authenticity, completeness, truth, or reality.

I do not seek the endorsement of the US government for my relationship; I seek the fulfillment of my rights as a citizen. If we are after the blessing of our society in this endeavor, then count me out. I don't need it or want it. I don't need other peoples' approval. What kind of violence does a statement like this woman's do to all the myriad types of relationships entered into by heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, trans people, or others?

We must realize our own truth; we must affirm our own unions. Some of us may seek the blessings of a Higher Power and I understand that. There are sanctuaries available for those who seek this. Legal recognition is not equivalent to a spiritual blessing. With our without a blessing, we must understand ourselves as already whole - as fully formed and already deserving of the recognition that heterosexual unions are entitled to. We seek legal status not as affirmation but because we have already affirmed our love and are waiting for the rest of the nation to get there with us.

Crossing the Streams: Captain America doesn't want you teabagging

So rarely does my interest in comics and social interests overlap. From an article on Yahoo! news about a recent Captain America comic that includes a reference to the teabaggers, comes this quote:

In response to Marvel's explanation and apology, Tea Party Movement founder
Judson Phillips told Yahoo! News that it "sounds less like a genuine 'we're
sorry' than it does a 'we're sorry we got caught' statement."

"When I was a child in the '60s Captain America was my favorite superhero,"
he said. "It's really sad to see what has traditionally been a pro-America
figure being used to advance a political agenda."

Like most things with Teabaggers, facts don't get in the way of a good sound bite. In fact, Captain America had in his creation as anti-Nazi WWII propaganda. He fought Hitler, horrible German and Japanese stereotypes, advocated for war bonds, you name the type of propoganda, Cap was not just part of it, but a response to it. Later in the 70's, Cap has always struggled with his moral and political place in the world.

Captain America has almost always since his revival in the 60's asked himself which America he represented: does he represent the government, the people, or some American Ideal? He's struggled both figuratively and literally with comic-book stand-ins for Nixon and Reagan.

Captain America has always been and always probably will be political.

I also find the not uncommon implication that comic books shouldn't and/or can't deal with political or other serious materials to be, not surprisingly for a Teabagger, short sighted, uninformed, and narrow minded. I would suggest he go read some of the classics of sequential literature, but I'd hate to suggest he actually go read original and creative thought.

The Facts About American and Gay Families, or McCain Again Proves Out of Touch and Mind

From: KARA SUFFREDINI, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY FOR THE FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL


Senator McCain's comment in the New York Times on Sunday, July 13, stating, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption" demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of the many kinds of families that exist in the United States. The Family Equality Council, the national organization working to ensure equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families, is disturbed and disappointed that a presidential candidate would make such a biased and ill-informed statement about the most "successful" kind of family.

These are the facts about American families. According to the 2000 census, the vast majority-more than 75%-of American households differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children. We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, and families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples and more. As an adoptive parent himself, McCain should be well aware of this. As a presidential candidate, he should seek to honor and support the many kinds of families that exist, rather than dismiss the vast majority of households in this country as second-tier.

This is what is true about lesbians and gays raising children: 30 years of scientifically valid research universally demonstrates that LGBT families are just as nurturing for children's growth and development as heterosexual families.

Our society's primary child welfare organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, have all issued statements supporting same-sex parents. The American Psychological Association has stated: "Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children."

All of which makes one wonder: What is the basis for Senator McCain's position?

American families may be diverse, but have at least one thing in common-we want our children to be safe, healthy, happy and supported. When our families are politicized, our ability to protect ourselves, each other and our children comes under attack. After eight years of similarly baseless attacks on our families, we hope that the next President of the United States will honor and support the vast array of families that daily work to raise happy, healthy and productive children. The Family Equality Council has a proud history of educating political leaders about our families and we welcome Senator McCain and others whose perspectives affect the most personal aspects of our lives to contact us and get to know the loving families he paints as "unsuccessful".

Where the Candidates Stand

According to Southern Voice

ENDA
Supports: Clinton, Obama
Opposes: McCain

Hate crime legislation
Supports: Clinton, Obama
Opposes: McCain

DOMA Repeal
Supports: Obama
Opposes: McCain
Clinton supports a partial but not total repeal

Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Supports: Clinton, Obama
Opposes: McCain

Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage
Voted agains: Clinton, McCain, Obama

Same-Sex Marriage
Opposes: Clinton, McCain, Obama

Same-sex Civil Unions
Supports: Clinton, Obama
Mixed views (means opposes to me): McCain


Does any of this mean that our rights will be advanced? Probably not significantly, although I hope we can see ENDA passed and with transgendered rights included. I would love to see DOMA repealed, but I'm not confident this will happen under any president.

Your Easter Sunday Sermon

Here's what Dr. King got out of the Sermon on the Mount. On Nov 17, 1957, in MOntgomery's Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, he concluded the learned discourse that came to be known as the "loving your enemies" sermon this way: "So this morning, as I look into your eyes and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you: 'I love you. I would rather die than hate you.'"

Go ahead and re-read that. That is hands down the most beautiful, strange, impossible, but most of all radical thing a human being can say. And it comes from reading the most beautiful, strange, impossible, but most of all radical civics lesson ever taught, when Jesus of Nazareth went to a hill in Galilee and told his disciples, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."

Whoever wins the presidential election this year will be a Christian. (Unless of course it's that one guy who is a member of a Muslim sleeper cell. Just when you think the electorcal process couldn't get any more stupid....) So the rest of us might as well suck it up and see if we can pick the Christian who is, if incapable of loving his or her enemies, the one who seems least likely to drum up a bunch of extra, new enemies to hate.

-- Your most unlikely minister, Sarah Vowell in The New York Times, January 21, 2008

No Link found between Bush Administration and the Truth

ABC News reports that the Bush administration is making the Pentagon report detailing no connection between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaida difficult to access

The Real Threat to America

Kern's remarks in conjunction with the CMS anti-bullying policy debate has made this quite the fun week for anti-gay remarks. I like Wolfe's letter; he sums it all up nicely.

As I said in my last post, Kern and people like her wouldn't know Jesus if he fell on her face and wiggled: something I'm sure has NEVER happened to Sally Kern.

The fact that this woman is an elected official is odious. To paraphrase Frank Schaeffer, politicians, religious leaders and others who traffic in fear-mongering, hate speech, and outright lies are anti-American. They want to see our nation fail so they can rationalize their apocalyptic fervor. They want to see our nation destroyed so they can maintain their fear-based power. These people are the true threat to America; they seek to turn citizen against citizen. They want to destroy the very principles of our great nation: liberty and dignity for all human beings. What is more anti-American than that?



OPEN LETTER TO OKLAHOMA REP. SALLY KERN FROM CHUCK WOLFE, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE GAY & LESBIAN VICTORY FUND (via Renna Communications)


WASHINGTON, DC - The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender political action committee, sent an open letter today to Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern in response to her inflammatory virulently anti-gay remarks and her refusal to issue an apology. Rep. Kern's remarks, recorded in audio and posted on the Victory Fund's Web site, have received national attention and over half-a-million hits.

To listen to Rep. Kern's comments, please visit: http://www.victoryfund.org/files/listening.html
March 11, 2008

Rep. Sally Kern
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Room 332
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Dear Sally,

I saw the statement you released yesterday in which you said your "hate speech" is merely "free speech." That's kind of gross, but it's also beside the point.

The point is this: your words have consequences. Ask Judy Shepherd - her son, Matthew, was viciously murdered ten years ago by people who think like you. Ask the parents of Lawrence King, an openly gay eighth-grader who was gunned down in school last month by a classmate whose fear was stoked by words like yours. Just this past fall, Steven Domer, a 62-year-old gay man was brutally murdered right in your home state of Oklahoma.

What you said is not okay, but that's not because most sensible people disagree with it. It's because your words give aid and comfort to those who would hurt, maim and even kill people who are different from you. Comparing gays and lesbians to cancer and terrorism and saying they are the "biggest threat to America," gives license to others to treat us that way, especially given the leadership position you hold in your community.

I also read that some of your colleagues in the Republican caucus stood and cheered you as you entered their meeting yesterday. How odd and depressing. This isn't a partisan issue; I know plenty of Republicans who were outraged at your comments, because they themselves are parents, friends and family to gays andlesbians who are at risk when people of your stature say the kinds of things you did.

Whether or not you agree that gay people deserve halfway decent treatment(the fact that you said we were destroying America implies that you don't), what I want you to understand is that the words you said will have real life implications. Your speech can lead to the murders of more young people. You have outraged hundreds of thousands, but you may have inspired a few people, too. That's not just sad, it's evil.

The point of the Victory Fund's releasing your speech was to draw attention to the fact that even elected leaders like you are saying some nasty and potentially dangerous things about your fellow citizens. Our mission is to elect people to counter your hate and bigotry with honesty and courage.

You may have been applauded by a handful of your colleagues, but more than a half million people are now listening. They heard you loud and clear, and they're not clapping.

Sincerely,

Chuck Wolfe

President and CEOThe Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund

About the Victory Fund

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund is the nation's largest LGBT political action committee and the only national organization dedicated to increasing the number of openly LGBT elected officials at all levels of government. Since 1991, the Victory Fund and its national donor network have helped hundreds of openly LGBT candidates win election to local, state and federal offices. For more information, please visit http://www.victoryfund.org/.

Not a Funny Video: Homohatred from Oklahoma State Republican Representative Nancy Kern

Both Pam's House Blend and Joe.My.God have sufficient commentary on this sad example of irrational hatred and fear-mongering by public officials (and in this case a former teacher: scary!) that I'll just post the video, courtesy of The Victory Fund.

Comics and Politics? Has the World Gone Mad?

On the comics weblog The Savage Critics, Jeff Lester impressively uses comic lingo and the Sandman storyline as pretty spot-on political commentary. Go read his entry and come back to see my response to his excellent post:

I think that the way to tie it back into Sandman is that the entire work is that we create our own story, even when we insist that fate or forces outside of our control has driven us down a particular path not of our choosing (and for Morpheus, perhaps like Clinton, that path was to get out of the job). Like Morpheus, Clinton has to some degree had her narrative disrupted (historic change) by an outside force, but what has she done with that? She has gone defensive and negative largely, becoming more insular (like Morpheus), only showing hints of personality and likeability (are the lessons of Al Gore, a man supposedly charming, but deadly cold and humorless during his presidential bid, so soon forgotten?)

Some psychological research shows that positive candidates win. The more positive you authentically are and your message genuinely is (optimism can only be faked in short bursts), the more likely you are to be elected. I think this is where she has fallen down: Obama has stayed "above the fray" for the most part. Yes, he responds to attacks and does himself attack from time to time, but the delivery doesn't sound venomous like it does from Clinton. Hope may be the defining characteristic of leadership and Obama, less experience or not, seems more hopeful. People want to mock this (and Hillary did herself a huge disservice making fun of this, I think) but I think it's incredibly powerful.

I think you see this in Bush I v. Clinton I. Bush became sour and cynical and it hurt him. He became less personable, likeable, and optimistic.You are also right about the way information and news impacted the Clinton/Bush fight. The excellent book The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 talks in-depth about the "freak show" the bloggers and the rise of Matt Drudge as a watershed movement that changed not just the way information about candidates was shared, but what kind of information was shared, and what was considered suitable information to share. TV news has since largely followed suit and some print news media as well. Certainly now a million politcal blogs and sites exist catering to everything from political gossip and speculation to partisan talking points to (rarely) balanced, informed information or analysis. Clinton, the book correctly is the best to handle the freak show (as is McCain on the other side).

It's a real potential weakness for Obama, the furies on his heels that he must learn to deal with without having his kingdom crumble around him. I think he has the potential to handle it okay, but am concerned for him in this respect unless he receives good guidance from the Clintons, should he be the nominee. (I don't think we'll still know this until convention, unless by some miracle he takes both Ohio and Texas, which doesn't seem likely at this point - maybe Texas).

As a running mate, Clinton would do well to pick Obama, but the reverse is not true. Running as a change agent, Obama would seem hypocritical picking Clinton (not that I think she would accept if offered). She would also alienate those independents that like Obama but hate her - Clinton is strongly polarizing in a way neither McCain or Obama is.A Veep Obama would help smooth out Clinton, however, an unify Democrats and draw some independents. I would be fearful that our society is not yet progressive enough, however, to vote in a woman-black man ticket.

A Real Call for Change

Hillary Clinton cannot win this election. No matter how capable and intelligent she is, and I believe her to be well qualified in both those areas, Clinton is far too polarizing a figure. She attracts as much negative reaction as positive. A recent CNN and Time poll demonstrates not only this fact, but that Obama stands a much better chance of defeating McCain.

Although hardly a scientific survey, my mother, my study of one, sees a much deeper shade of scarlet than Republican Red. You can't get much lower than Hillary for her: untrustworthy, deceitful, con-artist, huckster, and rapid destoryer of health plans are terms that merely begin to scratch the surface of how she feels. This is what approximately half of this country thinks about the senator. She raises hackles beyond reason; she polarizes simply by existing. There's nothing that she can do to change this.

My mother's reaction to Obama? "I don't know if he has the military experience." Hardly the visceral reaction she has for Clinton.

One factor that's gotten some but still surprisingly press is the Bill factor. His presence alone is a huge handicap and not just because he shot his mouth off recently. Not only will the possibility of him returning to the White House, even as first husband, galvanize Republicans to rally around McCain, but it will also lead indepedent moderates and undecided voters to vote Republican simply because they don't like him or because they don't think a former president should return to the White House in any capacity.

Although the delegate counts are roughly equal, I'd say the choice here is instinctual. The mere reason that Obama and even McCain has faired so well is that they are seen as change. If the American public wanted politics as usual, Clinton or Romney would have easily won. Obama is also winning in a lot of different states; his appeal is clearly far broader than Clinton's, winning more states and the important bellweather state of Missouri, which could have easily gone to, and probably should have gone, to Clinton. Ohio is the next bellweather test for Obama. If he can pull off a victory there, it will position him well for the nomination.

The biggest mistake that can be made is a fractuous display in caucus over the nomination. If the nomination ends up looking anything like Florida in 2000, it won't matter who gets the nomination; the party will be too divided to sweep anyone to victory.

I am somewhat heartened by the impending nomination of McCain, mostly for what that represents than for the man himself. I see McCain's wins as a refutation of the extreme socially conservative sector that the Republican Party has so closely courted the past eight plus years. I also see this as hope that our country is tired of divisive politics and policies. Huckabee's success in the South, unfortunately, does demonstrate the reality that the claws of religious fundamentalism are still attempting to retain their chokehold on the Republican party. But, I think most people are tired of that. I think that most Americans, like myself, see James Dobson's rant against John McCain as a ringing endorsement.

So, if I'm right, and I hope I am, then this is especially why Clinton is the wrong choice. Whether she is or not, she appears divisive; she doesn't have the voice of reconciliation (although she is often lauded for her cross-partisan work). People want change; they want a new voice; they want reasoned and considered leadership that works for the citizens of this country and not the corporations. People want our country restored to its former greatness; they want us to be participants in the world, to see our global citizenship restored. People want hope. And I do believe in the audacity of hope.

Red Letter Evangelists May be Blue Party Voters

Tony Campolo interview on the February 4, 2008 showing of The Colbert Report.

Campolo is a representative of a subgroup of evangelical Christians who believe that the Religious Right has gotten it wrong. Campolo, and those he describes as Red Letter Christians are interested in relieving the suffering of the poor and support gay marriage on the basis that Jesus would want civil equality for all people and would not want any person oppressed. They may theologically still believe that homosexuality is a sin, but don't see that as appropriate reasoning for denying people civil equality.

Make no mistake that Campolo considers homosexuality a sin, a problem. Based on sermons he has delivered, he believes that true gay Christians must remain celebate. That point of theology aside (and, yes, it's a pretty significant difference in theology), he at least promotes the idea that gay people should be accepted as any other member and shames the church for failing in its mission and ostracizing instead of embracing anyone desiring to be loved by God. He also clearly makes the point that sexual orientation is not likely to change and that no simple answers exist as to why people are gay. Even though I strongly disagree with his strict reading of the Bible, I am glad to know that there are evangelicals out there who advocate for social justice and getting back to the love of Christ.

Presidential Predictions

We will be no closer after tomorrow to seeing a clear Democratic nominee unless Hill fails to caputre Cali.

Obama will do very well in the South, taking most if not all southern states. Obama has Illinois.

Hillary will do best in California, New England states and the Southwest.

I think we'll see a 50-50 split in the middle states.

McCain will emerge as the clear Republican nominee after tomorrow night. Romney gets Utah and Mass only and subsequently goes down in flames - yea!

Romney will be greatly undermined by Huckabee pulling numbers from him in the South. Romney is a first-class Yankee and we don't like Yankees in these parts.

Not Just a Great Drag Queen Name

Although it's wonderful to have a black man and a woman as strong, viable candidates for President, let us never forget Lenora Fulani, the first female black woman to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Dedicated to Peter.

Weak Dollar Fuels Foreign Purchase of US Businesses

Strengthens a weak economy or exposes and leaves us vulnerable to foreign influence and policies? Show your work

Washington Post Article