Weird Science

How cool is this? I participated in the MIT blog survey!

What to be part of an important (well, I'm just assuming here) academic survey?
Sure you do! Click the tag below.

Common Cents: Victories Abroad and Small Steps at Home

Well, something to celebrate as both Spain and Canada legalize same-sex marriage (and Spain legalized gay adoption also - so go adopt all those gay babies).

The United Church of Christ is on the verge of passing a resolution this week in Atlanta that will support of same-sex marriage, making it the first mainstream religion to do so. You may remember them from this fantastic commercial proclaiming their acceptance of diverse congregational members. It was so controversial CBS and NBC refused to air because of it's radical message.

Less celebratory, but just as interesting is that Bush appointed openly gay Israel Hernandez, (better known to Bushies as "Altoid Boy" for his supplying of Dubya with mints) as Assistant Secretary of Commerce.

Living La Vida Queero

Here I am back again on the bitch train apparently. But yet another item has struck a nerve.

I was listening to our local NPR call-in radio talk show when a nervous caller offered to the program host that there are people who have found Jesus and left the "gay lifestyle." The caller seemed nervous and not quite fully convinced of his own assertion, but the host was gentle and asked if he left the "lifestyle" because he was unhappy because of external pressure. No, the caller replied, the pressure and unhappiness was all internal. He just prayed about it and got religion and left it behind him.

One, I hate the term "gay lifestyle." That doesn't even mean anything. Are you referring to sex with men, or more specifically my husband? That's a fraction of my life that is no different from anybody else with a spouse. And prior to having a husband? Don't tell me straight people don't have sex with non-spouses.

Drugs? Ibuprofen here and there. Booze? I drink every third blue moon. Clubbing? Sorry, don't have any baby seals around here.

Perhaps you refer to my tastefully decorated house? You're certainly not suggesting it's about my fairly conservative Old Navy polos and Dockers khaki pants. Although you might mean choice of snazzy Bass buckle loafers.

I'm not sure what kind of lifestyle I have. I guess it's quasi-yuppish for the most part. Other than that, I have no idea.

The only people who feel the need to leave "the gay lifestyle" are those who have bought into all the messages that something is wrong with them. These are the people who, if they were politicians, would be hiding in the closet while trying to kill gay civil rights legislation. They hate themselves.

Or, they've allowed themselves to think that their choice to drink heavily, consume illegal drugs, or have risky and/or promiscuous sex is because they are gay. Everybody else blames all the bad stuff on being gay, why not hang your alcoholism or lack of personal responsibility on that hook too? Face it, if you were straight, you'd still be doing the same things, only you've convinced yourself that your problem isn't that you are a slut, but that you are gay.

I would feel bad for these people, but I'm tired of them telling me and others that their personal problem is a truism about me and my, I'm not afraid to brag, very well put together life.

A Wake Up Call for the Gay Community

Hiltons to be grand marshals of L.A. Pride parade
Associated Press Friday, June 10, 2005 / 06:33 PM

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -- Paris Hilton and her mother, Kathy, will be
grand marshals for the annual Gay Pride parade, one of the city's biggest celebrations.

They will greet tens of thousands of people expected Sunday at the Los
Angeles Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender Pride Parade.

Paris Hilton, the 24-year-old star of television's "The Simple Life" reality show, provoked controversy recently by appearing scantily clad in a Carl's Jr. burger commercial.

The hotel heiress is engaged to Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis, a grandson of John Latsis, the last of Greece's shipping billionaires from the postwar boom years, who died in 2003 at 93.

This news clip exemplifies perfectly to me a problem in the modern gay community. We are, and have been for a while, failing to be the activists we need to be in order to secure not just legal rights, but societal respect and acceptance.

Pride parades have become another meaningless entertainment venue, devoid of any purpose other than to get nekkid, scare the straights, and get tweaked. Instead of putting some person of value and significance, we put up a sleazy whore who has no redeeming social value, not to mention not even any celebrity of worth or entertainment value.

She is a non-person, a non-entity, a non-celebrity. To quote a recent book on teen girls, the only reason Hilton has been put up on a pedestal is so men can look up her skirt. Why gay men (or any self-respecting lesbian) would look up to her other than to reinforce the pervasive stereotype that we are also sleazy whores is beyond me.

And so once again we buy into our own internalized homophobia. We celebrate not that which makes us special or valuable, but our most base aspect, the societal spectre that follows us and seeks to destroy us as a people not worth respect or dignity or legal rights.

We fail to make a statement other than an addiction to the sexual and the shallow. We fail to be activists and retreat into the safety and denial of a stereotype that emphasizes sex and shallowness. And it must be right; we embrace those values in the choice of Paris Hilton.

We have grown accustomed to being denied rights so long as they don't shut down the bathouses. We have accepted being seen as living demons and spreaders of perversion and disease so long as they don't call us queer and fag. We have allowed ourselves to be the gay Steppin Fetchit.

Crash Coarse

Everyone's a little bit racist, or so the Avenue Q song goes. That's certainly the main conceit of the recent movie Crash, which puts a not-so-fine of a point on that idea.

Crash, much like its name, is anything but subtle. It paints in broad, course strokes, only occasionally using a more understated approach. Not only is everyone racist, but almost everyone is a raving bigot and aren't afraid to express their bigotry. A gun shop owner has no problem insulting the Persian man purchasing a weapon from him and then denying him the purchase. A black police detective doesn't hesitate to demean his Latina partner and lover. A black wife and husband freely hurl invective at each other about how black the other actually is. And everybody is down on the Hispanic locksmith.

Which is not to suggest that the movie is entirely inaccurate. Modern racism tends to be more subtle and insidious than the coarse verbalization found in the movie, but the thoughts and perspectives expressed are certainly valid representations of the way many people think or feel. Although reflected in real life, the movie does take easy shortcuts in dealing with bigotry. The affluent city DA is politically correct in the worst sense; he cares more about surface perception that actually dealing with true racial problems. His wife recoils from any non-white, mortified of any minority after they car-jacked. Racism is also a bit too neat: Americans hate Muslims, black and white people hate each other; black and Asian people hate each other; LA police are corrupt, white and black, etc.

Even with these shortcuts, the film is not devoid of complexity. Just as virtually everybody is racist, so is no one person made completely evil. Even the most compromised characters possess some degree of virtuousness. Characters have to learn to compromise and deal with each other despite their problems and differences. Although perhaps overly simple, paradoxically a complex web of connectivity is created among the principle characters.

Yet it is this simplistic six degrees of separation that is the point to be taken away here. The title of the movie does not apply to car crashes, indeed there are only three crashes: one at the beginning, one slightly over half-way through the movie, and one at the end (and interestingly enough the end crash is the only crash we actually see happen). The movie opens with a line by Don Cheadle who speculates that people crash their cars into each other to have contact with other people that is missing in every day life. Indeed, Crash refers to the way we have the potential to crash into each other culturally. Instead of choosing to reach out in equality and with an open-mind, we choose to be hurtful and oblivious to the people around us. As much of the cultural destruction that happens is purposeful, an equal amount is the failure to see beyond our own cultural filters and lenses.

Ultimately we witness the destruction that our self-imposed isolation (both physical and cultural) brings about in both the lives of others and in our society. Although this point is brought home with a hammer, Crash does seek to raise the audience's awareness of the personal and larger consequences of failing to understand and interact with our fellow human beings. Crash could have been more interesting by playing with the more internalized and subtle aspects of racism. Some of the sub-plot and character development outcomes could have shown more meaningful results (will Sandra Bullock's spoiled rich white woman's revelation truly lead to her making her housekeeper's life better?)

Crash does offer a highly intense and thought-provoking experience that does captivate the audience. And, interestingly, at least in the theater where I saw it, drew perhaps the most diverse crowd I have ever seen at any movie. Crash has the potential to bring about meaningful dialogue and could open doors not normally open for multicultural understanding.

Mr. Postman

Post Secret is a blog that, in the name of an art project, encourages people to send in a secret, anonymously, on a post card. Most of the secrets have a graphic representation of the secret. Some seem too incredible to be true, yet surely the perverse imagination of these people is telling and insightful nonetheless.

Interestingly, more secrets than not it seems deal with deception as opposed to sheer covertness. The sender has lied rather than merely failed to disclose or kept hidden information or an aspect of their life. Many represent some sense of failure in life, a sense of incompleteness, a lack of achievement or worth of being: a reminder that ultimately most people just want love and acceptance.

Not surprisingly, a few deal with gay or gay-related themes, both amusingly ("I had gay sex at church camp. Three times") and tragically ("I spread rumors about my gay classmate to see how people would react if they found out about me"). Some postcards such as "I used to write poems and dream of being famous...now I just do drag" leave one wondering if the sender has made peace with his/her status or mourns lost (or perceived lost) potential.

Several of the postcards are humorous and may share a secret one can relate with (no, I won't share which ones), gay or straight. A a few are even uplifting: "I believe I will achieve something truly great in this lifetime. I am going to be 53 tomorrow."

Out on a Limb

When is it appropriate to "out" one's self, if self is so inclined to do such things? As part of my interests and profession, I do not infrequently give presentations. I also teach a class. And, despite being an out and proud gay man, I often find myself wondering if and when it is appropriate to disclose my sexuality.

I am a firm believer in my need to be an example and role model to any gay men who may not already be out: that is ok to be out and that you can lead a happy, productive, fulfilled life as an out man. I also want any gay men in my class or workshop to feel like he has someone to talk to or ask questions to, if he might be looking for somebody else to connect with who has shared his experience: you can't tell who is gay just by looking at them, so connecting with each other can be difficult.

I don't, as a matter of course, just blurt it out. My sexuality usually only arises when doing some type of personal disclosure icebreaker or when I'm teaching on diversity or leadership. In class, I like to disclose realitively early because I'm about to spend a long few months with these people and if my sexuality is going to be a problem for a student, I'd like to save us both some small amount of trouble. Also, it provides me some shorthand; I don't have to back up when the person asks me during a casual conversation, "did you just say your husband?"

Of course part of me feels like it isn't anybody's business and certainly they don't have a right to know this about me. Some people would argue that it is inappropriate to disclose my sexuality; after all, heterosexuals don't flaunt their sexuality in class. But of course they do. They can talk, without thought or hesistation, about their girl/boyfriend or husband/wife. I, on the other hand, frequently think about what kind of ramificiations talking about my husband will have on the situation at hand. Announcing that I am gay has actually helped prevent some awkward situations. Of course it creates some too, but then I'm prepared for that and the perverse side of me enjoys the controversy I've just caused.

A recent uncomfortable moment happened when I was talking with a college student who mentioned that he had recently earned his Eagle Award as a Boy Scout. I was congratulating him and mentioned that I had been a Cub Scout, never taking the initiative to be a Boy Scout, butthat my husband was an Eagle Scout too and so I knew how much work went into that. The previously engaging conversation went stone dead at that point. The student became noticeably uncomfortable and so did I; I admittably was trying to put out there the message that gays are Boy Scouts too, but I was trying to be casual about it. Instead, I got the sound of crickets and an atomic bomb at the same time.

Outing myself early can produce interesting results: More often than not, I receive words of support and encouragement; sometimes people tell me about parents, siblings, or other relatives that are gay or lesbian.

Opening avenues for discussion on several levels is good, but what doI lose, if anything? Does outing myself early cut me off from people who would otherwise hear my message? Am I forgoing a relationship that could truly change a person's perspective later on after mutual trust and respect has been established?

Obviously, no easy answer exists. Appropriateness, motive, safety, educational opportunites, and convenience all converge to create a puzzle that must be solved differently on an almost daily basis. Being out involves regularly stepping out on a limb, hoping that you make a higher connection with people without the branch snapping under your feet.

To The Special Women in My Life

Congratulations to my sister, Lesley, for graduating college!

Lesley earned her BA in English, just like big brother. She looked dazzling in her new earrings and sassy in her cute shoes. Lesley was one of the first people I came out to and has been a wonderful support to me. She has also been an outspoken advocate for gay people in her college classes and with her peer group. She has gone beyond the call of simply being a loving sister and has acted as a true ally to me and my husband. Lesley was a great sister even before I came out and it's never been truer. She has a very bright future ahead of her as the loving, beautiful, and creative person that she is.

And I cannot forget Mom during the coming and passing of Mother's Day. Nobody could ask for a greater mother, truly. I remember during college commenting to a professor that my mother was probably an ISFJ (that's Myers-Briggs type if you don't know. You can go here to get something very much like it). My professor said that it was the perfect mom personality. That professor was right. I also hope that my sister and I take after our mom in the looks department; she's a vision of youth.

My deepest love to both of you.

The Latte of Christ

I have frequently bemoaned the current trends in modern Christianity here. Fundamentalism has taken far too strong a grasp into the modern church. But, how has religous common sense been replaced by fantatical dogmatism? Part of that answer is the modern mega-church.

Many of the churches who have built congregations into the thousands are the churches putting forth ideas of non-acceptance and blind adoption of their tenets. Mega-churches are more like country clubs than places of worship; their popularity has been predicated on making congregants feel like members of an exclusive and priviledge elite. And part of your membership requirements is agreeing with what the church tells you to believe.

But why accept those tenets? What makes mega-churches so attractive in the first place? These exerpts from an article in the April 27th edition of the Washington Post reveal how:

For Church on the Move, one of the Bible Belt's fastest-growing nondenominational churches, the efforts to attract the next generation of believers comes at a 92,000-square-foot state-of-the-art community entertainment complex called Oneighty -- complete with basketball courts, 20 Apple iPod centers, 20 computers and countless video play stations suspended from the ceiling.

After listening to an hour-long sermon and Christian music performed by a 10-member rock band, students have full run of the place. It is a model that has been adopted by several hundred churches nationwide. "They make church fun," Ramiro Satoe, 13, said as he aggressively worked the race-car arcade game on a recent Wednesday night.

In the next few months, Church on the Move, which has 12,000 members, will renovate its lobby areas, putting in a cafe and conservation areas.

"We want to make our halls like Barnes & Noble -- feel at home, get here early, stay late . . . where we can talk about life issues, we can get to know each other," he said.

Indeed, gone are long fire-and-brimstone services. Wednesdays now tend to be more casual, social and personal -- a time to study the Bible, but also interact with like-minded worshipers who are often outnumbered on Sundays by what the devout church community calls the drop-in "seekers."

So, obviously the answer is: clever marketing and upper-middle class amenities. Really, ecclesiastical teaching has been replaced with Ipods, or at least made more interesting and palpable because you're sipping on a double mocha latte while listening to it. Also note the in-crowd attitude displayed by referring to Sunday-only worshippers as "drop-in 'seekers'." Sounds mildly condescending, doesn't it? These casual seekers aren't seen as being part of the truly committed, video-game playing, rock music listening church community.

I certainly don't begrudge a church providing entertainment outside of worship services and a comfortable environment for church members, but the whole purpose of church, to worship God and study God's teachings, seems to have taken a serious backseat in favor of church-malls and church-coffee shops. Malls and coffee shops where only the most devout and elite are truly welcome.

Thus are the politics of exclusion formed early in the fundamentalist world: through selective inclusion. So people who would probably be uncomfortable discussing homosexuality and gay issues but otherwise open become people who will not tolerate the moral threat posed by the "gay agenda." Their conversion from tolerant people to people who exclude others is predicated on their own fear that they will be excluded from their newfound church club of convenience and entertainment.

Membership to a church or participation in sanctified video games has overtaken the true practice of Christianity. The two have been great confused, as evidenced by this quote in the same Post article:

"Christians understand that church is not an activity -- it's a lifestyle," said Buddy George, a pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., home church of Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose-Driven Life."

Like many modern Christians, Pastor George has it wrong. Church is an activity. Christianity and worship is a lifestyle.

The Real Threat of Gay Marriage

NPR's weekly program This American Life recently dedicated its hour to the topic of "The Sanctity of Marriage." (Click the link and search for the title - you can listen to the whole program free.) The first section of the show covered the work of Dr. John Gottman, founder of the Gottman Institute. Dr. Gottman and his associates study predictors of marital success. They also teach the techniques that they have discovered to be successful in happily married couples

Gottman and his team observe couples that have been asked to discuss a topic they disagree on (and according to Dr. Gottman's research and common sense, all couples disagree on something (and usually about certain key subjects)) and then study that interaction. While the couple discusses the issue, researchers categorize every level of interaction: from what is actually said to how it is said (not just the emotion behind it but the rate, tone, pitch, volume, etc. of speech) to facial expressions and body language to how couples respond to each other.

Gottman's research includes same-sex couples. Dr. Gottman's research sample of same-sex couples is very small (21 lesbian and 21 gay male couples )but has produced interesting results. If the results are representative, straights could be in real trouble.

Dr. Gottman tells reporter Ira Glass that same-sex couples are not just as good as straight couples, but are "even better" when it comes to handling conflict. He notes that compared to 42 straight marriages of the same length and satisfaction), same-sex couples were better at "listening when criticized,... [being] less defensive,...[and being] more positive." He notes a conversation one gay-male couple had regarding sex initiation where one of the men told his partner that he didn't have the kind of body he was turned on by. The partner acknowledged that and then re-asked the original question. Dr. Gottman compares that to a male-female couple: how many wives would not become defensive and upset when told her husband didn't find her body attractive.

Dr. Gottman doesn't know why these same-sex couples did better. Possibly, he postulates, it's simply "easier for men to talk men" and likewise for women.

Also, interestingly, Dr. Gottman notes that it's impossible to find government funding for research on committed homosexual relationships or their sustainment without being very careful about the types of words used in a grant proposal. Certain watchdog organizations use computers to locate certain words like "gay", "lesbian", and "homosexual" to protest any government funding. As such, those proposal aren't even reviewed. This is "the kind of climate in which we're working" Dr. Gottman notes.

Unfortunately, it's not surprising that certain elements of our society,don't want gays to have successful relationships and that our government, rather than doing the right thing, bows to the pressure these zealots exert. It's also not surprising that almost no major press coverage has been given to Dr. Gottman's (admittably limited) results on same-sex relationships.

The general population, and I believe a good portion of the gay community, wants to buy into the stereotype and the hype: we can't have stable relationships. We seem desperately to need to believe the idea that we're so flawed that we can't commit to one another. This idea certainly allows those among us who are promiscuous and want nothing more out of life than meaningless sex and drugs to rationalize their irresponsible behavior.

We are no more flawed than any straight person. We are told we are flawed constantly; others would have us believe that something is wrong with us, but I believe that it is life with those messages that make us better in relationships. Perhaps we are more sensitive to our spouse's viewpoint because our own viewpoint is so often denigrated in society. We know what it's like to be told we are bad and wrong, so we are reluctant to automatically label another person as such. Conflicts then become less about "winning" (oppressing the other viewpoint or need) or villianizing our opposition, but about giving that person the understanding and opportunity to express his/her side that we so often wish others would give us.

The information I quote in this entry can be found beginning around the 25 minute mark. After this segment, the program tears into DOMA with a satirical eye and also seriously looks at the legal arguments being used against gay marriage. However, I recommend listening to the entirety of the excellent program.

Planet Out-of-Line

DJ,

Thanks for the encouraging words. Funny you should mention the Pope as subject matter, since that's exactly the topic that was on my mind currently.

For the record, I was raised and still consider myself to be Southern Baptist as far as a religious denomination goes; my partner is Catholic. Neither of us are huge fans of Pope John Paul II, particularly in regard to his rigid stance on issues surrounding gays in the church.

The Pope could easily be called neglectful towards gay Catholics. He very easily could have made the distinction that he feels that homosexuality is non-Biblical, but that gays should be welcome in the Church with love and not denied communion or any other service, ministry, or rite of the church. He didn't take the opportunity to bring his people together in love in harmony despite his Biblical interpretation. He may have gone further by taking actions that allowed gays to be villianized and ostracized.

It's hard to understand how a man who was subject to oppression from Nazis and Communists could fail to see the evils of perpetuating oppression upon any other group. Still, he likely took the stances he did out of a sense of what he thought was truly right; unlike many leaders of the religious right, John Paul II probably acted, for right or wrong, good or evil, with the best of intentions with no ambition of bringing in more money, gaining political advantage, or solidifying a power base. This does not excuse his failure, but it does contextualize it.

On April 1st, PlanetOut, a leading gay website, sent out its regularly scheduled article updates on email. The subject line was "The Pope's Legacy of Homophobia."

Ironically, a "Social Grace" column, PlanetOut's answer to Miss Manners is also listed in this update. PlanetOut could have taken some lessons in manners; rather than sending this exceptionally insulting, insensitive, tasteless email. At the time that the email was sent, the Pope was clearly in the last stages of his life, on the verge of death.

He did then, and does now, as he rests in repose, deserve a show of respect. For his faults and failures in this area, the man did much good in his life. Regardless, he, like any other human being, deserves respect in death. The man man have committed evil to his gay members, but attacking the Pope does an evil to gay Catholics as well. It is hard to explain the connection I have seen between my partner and other Catholics with the Pope, but it is very tangible and important to them. Attacking the Pope is an indirect attack upon Catholics; it causes harm to an already harmed population.

There will be ample time to discuss his failures and lack of love and attention to his gay congregation. But, for now, we should let him rest in peace. He deserves the respect that any human, full of flaws and foilbles, but also capable of great love and compassion, deserves. This does not excuse him, but rathers shows ourselves to be something other than the evil he may have believed us to be.

Been a Long Time Blogging

Hi, I haven't gone away; I'm still here.

I haven't entered in quite some time because I've found it difficult to get wound up about anything in particular because it all seems to be the same old stuff over and over again, sometimes repackaged and recycled.

Gays and lesbians continued to be hammered by state consitutional amendments and the religious right. Bush continues to blatantly lie to the public and get away with it. We are still in Iraq and will probably be in Iran before Bush is out of office. The news media continues to focus on the banal and unimportant and so does Congress: steroids and Shiavo. Politics among gay organizations continue to hinder any real progress.

So, I've had very little to say that I thought was new or interesting. I could bitch and moan, but I've done a lot of that and didn't want to continue. Instead, I've had a lot of time focusing on doing instead of saying.

My work has been hectic as I spend enormous amounts of time developing a course sequence and sharpening my own skills and abilities as an instructor for freshmen interested in becoming leaders. Also, my volunteer work with our local "gay hotline", the Gay and Lesbian Switchboard of Charlotte has taken up my remaining free time as we both struggle to survive as well as make some impressive improvements and strides in service and outreach to callers and our volunteers.

Blogging would have felt like spinning my wheels. These activities make me feel like I'm actually accomplishing something. I have no idea who, if anybody, I'm reaching with my blog. Even my website, which used to bring me at least one email a month, has produced no contacts. So, time here feels far less productive than my other endeavors.

That said, I am not folding up shop. I actually have some thoughts and information to share. So, if you're out there, stick around. I'll be blogging around the mountain when I come.

Homer Sexual

The Simpsons couldn't be less controversial nowadays. Fox clearly tried to improve ratings by fanning the flames of controversy as Sunday's episode of the Simpsons centered on Springfield's quest for more tourism dollars by legalizing gay marriage. The episode was remarkably bland. Although funnier than the last few episodes of the season, it easily bypassed the more controversial, provocative (and sometimes obvious) jokes.

Yet every few minutes, the local Fox news program had a commerical where "Charlotteans react to the controversy." But it hasn't aired yet, I kept thinking. How can people react? I refused to watch the non-event coverage. Peter did, however, and it turns out one woman called in to say she was never watching Fox again. Now, for Fox, this is actually a huge ratings blow.

I did read an article in the New York Times where the president of the Parents Televison Council said that, despite not viewing the episode in question, gay marriage shouldn't be covered in a cartoon where children would be exposed to the subject matter. Obviously, this raises the question if the person had ever viewed any episode of the Simpsons. If so, he might have guessed that no child should be exposed to almost any single episode of the Simpsons. You would think people policing TV would actually watch it sometimes.

Expressions of Love

I hope everybody had a lovely Valentine's Day. It was pop culture love around the Thorsett-Denton household as we exchanged tokens of affection via The West Wing and Angel.

Even if you had no boyfriend or s.o. to share it with, I hope you loved yourself...in the best possible sense of that phrase. If not, go out and buy yourself some flowers or something nice. It may have been Black Monday, but remember, black is slimming.

Here's a little love from Canada (pulled from Rex Wockner's files):

"It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that minority rightsare uniform across the country. The government cannot, and should not, pick and choose which rights they will defend and which rights they will ignore."
--Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler as the government introduced legislation in Parliament Feb. 1 to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Courts already have legalized it in eight of Canada's 13 provinces and territories.

And no love for the dear president...

"George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnantas I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in1804. The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing. Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look..., and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal."
--Mike Carlton writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 22.

It's a Jungle (and Zoo) Out There

Late last year, a study came out that demonstrated that stress in cows' lives increases them being lesbian, at least in Australia.

Far more alarming news, the term "homosexual cow" brings up about 10,000 hits in Google. These two disturbing facts caused everybody's favorite senator, Rick Sanitarium, to urge for the screening of cow meet for homosexuality, lest the American public be turned by too much queer beef. Honest to God, Ricky said on October 8th, "Obviously, this is a matter of grave importance to all parents - this is why I'm committed to making sure packaged beef comes with warning labels if the meat isn't 100% pure heterosexual." I kid you not.

Some conservative alleged intellectuals have suggested that if stress causes homosexuality in cows, then anti-depressants might cure or retard homosexuality in children.

One might try this with penguins as well, since aversion therapy has not succeeded in straighting out some of the queer fowl in Germany. When separated from their mates and forced to socialize with female penguins, the gay male penguins just moped about. Perhaps they needed some Paxil.

Famous New York penguin Roy (of Roy and Silo fame) did recently claim to be bisexual, although the polar bears are saying he was just hanging out with some fag hags.

I Love Black Women

I do. I loves me some black wemmen.

The bond between gay men and women is legendary, reminiscient of the bond shared between crocodiles and the birds that clean their teeth.

Hmm. Perhaps a better analogy would be...no, that's a pretty accurate parallel. As strong as the bond between gay man and woman can be, I think none are more stronger than that between white gay man and black straight women.

It's almost enough to have your gay license revoked if you are white, gay, and male, and don't have an O.B.S.W. (obligatory black straight woman). I think the bond between us exists so strong because we come from similar circumstances. We are largely overlooked and underestimated by society. We have constant troubles from straight men (hell, men in general, for that matter). We're self-assured and usually sassy about it. And we know we look good no matter what you think about our outfit. It is fab-u-lous, Mr. Mann.

My entire life black women have helped me out. I didn't become aware of this until college, but black women have always stood by my side, even before I was out to myself. They have offered support while shining the harsh light of truth on you. Black women do not let you delude yourself. Are you crying on her shoulder because you've lost your boyfriend by sleeping around? She'll let you know she loves you, but, yes, you are a slut and you need to stop your whoring ways.

Admitedly, not every black woman had been kind or helpful to me (and neither I to to them), but this only brings on bad karma. Somewhere, somehow, they have suffered for breaking the great karmic balance. That's why it's vitally important to treat all black women with respect and dignity. Even if you don't know them, even if they are taking too long to cross the street in those hotpants three sizes too small, you must treat them well. To do otherwise is to invite disaster upon yourself ("oooh, it's gonna rain on yo' head').

Black women are fabulous and fierce. White gay men aspire to be black women, to release our I.N.P.(Inner Nubian Princess).

At the worst time of my life, a black woman gave me strength I didn't possess. At the sickest I've ever been, I was nursed and cared for by a black woman. At my first big interview, I was given a helping hand (literally) from a black woman (she was lesbian, but I love my lesbian sisters too). Whenever I become a drag queen, I have picked the name of a black woman (either Crystal Love or Delicia Butts).

A black woman, Coretta Scott King, has been a vocal advocate for LBGT rights and marriage.

A black woman, Rosa Parks, fueled the black civil rights movement, which gave rise to the gay rights movement.

I hope I have begun to repay some of that love and strength. I try to advocate for all black women whenever I can. I try to give freely of myself to the women who have made my life better.

Black women are beautiful, unpredictable, quick to anger, and full of love and comfort. I think God must be a black woman. Or, at least, I hope so.

Because Jesus Never Advocated Understanding or Respect

While James Dobson, head of uber-fundamentalist Christian Focus on the Family, rails on about the gayness of Spongebob Squarepants, in a statement rivaled only by (I'm sure) close friend and fellow evangelist Jerry Faldwell's outing of Tinky-Winky, the uber-fundamentalist and not-just-a-little nutty "Mississippi-based American Family Association, in a detailed article by the editor of its monthly journal, insists the endeavor [ of handing out a 'pro-tolerance music video for kids, featuring scores of their TV heroes ranging from the Muppets to SpongeBob SquarePants' by the We Are Family Foundation] has a pro-gay subtext.

'On the surface, the project may appear to be a worthwhile attempt to foster greater understanding of cultural differences,' wrote Ed Vitagliano. 'However, a short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality.'

To back his assertions, Vitagliano...complained of a 'tolerance pledge' found on the We Are Family Web site, borrowed from a civil rights group, which says in part, 'To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.'"

I'm glad Jesus never said anything about loving little gay children: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2

Happy Ingaguration Day

In-gag-uration Day news:

Today a Jazz Funeral for Democracy will be held to coincide with the start of Bush's inauguration.

According to the website, "'While the rest of the country will be focused on the beginning of Bush’s second term, our objective is to show the world that we are not in support of a continued war in Iraq, record inflation, flagrant disregard for the constitutional rights of all citizens and four more years of rule by a small group of wealthy elite. This will be a time to remind the president that he has a sworn obligation to represent and respect the rights and wishes of ALL Americans, including the 56 million people who voted against him.'

A horse-drawn hearse will carry a mock coffin containing copies of the Patriot Act and the U.S. Constitution through the streets of New Orleans. The Treme Brass Band will lead the procession, followed by marchers wearing traditional mourning clothes and black armbands, symbolizing the tragedy of the Iraqi war effort. The march is hopeful of picking up support from workers in the CBD during their lunch hour, as well as other sympathizers along the route.

'We hope that this event will result in the establishment of a Southern front for resistance to the occupation of Iraq. We are staging this peaceful event for one simple reason . . . because we can. Because the Bill of Rights, at least for now, guarantees that we can. Ours will be a defiantly upbeat gathering of the tribes; an opportunity to prepare for many months of resistance to come.'"

Anti-war group sues for access to presidential inauguration:

"An anti-war group filed a lawsuit Friday challenging what it called "the unprecedented exclusion of the public" from President Bush's inaugural parade route.
The lawsuit in federal district court claims the National Park Service is illegally blocking the general public from access to vast portions of Pennsylvania Ave. reserved solely for guests screened by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Park Service officials say they have fulfilled their obligation to allow the public including demonstrators access to open areas along the parade route. The agency has offered A.N.S.W.E.R. space for up to 10,000 protesters to stand or sit in bleachers in a large plaza along the route, just a few blocks from the Capitol.

The park service also has issued A.N.S.W.E.R. permits for protesters to stand in nine other smaller locations along Pennsylvania Ave. But the group says most of those areas are tiny pockets behind bleachers or in fenced-in areas more than 100 feet from the parade route. "

And, finally, I leave you today with some words from the Reverend Desmond Bishop Tutu, as spoken to Newsweek magazine in their December 30th issue (thanks to Rex Wockner posting this):

"I still can't believe that it [George W. Bush's reelection] really could have happened. Just look at the facts on the table: He'd gone into a war having misled people -- whether deliberately or not -- about why he went to war. You would think that would have knocked him out [of the race.] It didn't. Look at the number of American soldiers who have died since he claimed that the war had ended. And yet it seems this doesn't make most Americans worry too much. I was teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., [during the election campaign] and I was shocked, because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid] -- vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view."

Mr. Sensitive

Sometime in the late 70's, I was watching a television program with my mom. The program, "That's Incredible", warned that sensitive viewers may not want to watch their next segment about the poaching of elephants. I turned to my mom and asked if I was "sensitive."

"Yes, you are," was my mother's gentle reply.

And so I remain. I can easily look back on my life and see my development as somebody with strong feeling about almost everything. As uneasy as it makes me, I can recall those times when I was, and sometimes remain, hyper-sensitive or a bit too self-centered in my feeling. I thought, however, that at least regarding the outside world, I had, over the years, toughed up.

Yet tonight I'm nursing a wound that wasn't directly targeted at me or that I had anything to do with at all. A letter that I was privy to really unnerved me. In it, a person went on a virulent, wide-ranging homophobic rant, regarding an incident that involved no gay person. This person simply took their complaint about one issue and then springboarded into the evils of gays and gay-friendly organizations.

Now, other comments in the letter clearly mark this person as lacking any kind of general sense or stable perspective on the world, but nonetheless it bothered me. I am disturbed about how emboldened this person felt to express their bigotry so freely to a person whom he had no idea if he was gay or not. My heart actually aches to think that this person is so insensitive and callous to not care who the letter recepient was (or too dull to consider it). I'm troubled at the aggressiveness and spite of this person. I fear for the legacy that this person is leaving for future generations. I'm saddened that this person is proud of his hate.

This person's value structure was, to me, considerably misaligned. The threat of entitlement oozed from each sentence. Swift and merciful justice was implied upon all wrong-doers towards this man. A miasma of superiority infested the message. And, yet, based on certain statements in the letter, I envision this person as a "pillar of the community" and admired God-fearing Christian. And if I'm right, this person knows nothing about Christianity; certainly this person would trumpet the merit of traditional values, yet he has no aquaintance with morals or values of any worth.

My flowerly language clearly illustrates the sensitive chord this letter struck in me. I think perhaps the problem for me is that this letter, affecting people near to me, so personifies the very worst of our current climate. This letter is the epitome of the hypocrisy of so many in power and so many conservatives. To see such a personal example of the empowered, elitist, ignorant and intolerant attitudes that exist, chips away at a hope I hold. I need to believe that the majority of America, while not comfortable with gays and some aspects of gay civil rights (such as marriage) do hate us or seek to marginalize us to the degree that this person clearly would. But this letter threatens to rend the veil.

My rational side tells me that I'm over-reacting; that I'm over-personalizing, and that I'm over-sensitive. This person didn't actually hurt any gay person; nobody got beaten or had their job taken away. Yet here I am, Mr. Sensitive, and the scar remains.

Common Cents: Sweet Home Illinois

From 365gay.com --

After a decade long struggle to gain civil rights protections the Illinois legislature has passed a law banning the discrimination of gays and lesbians.

The House passed the measure by a 65 - 51 vote Tuesday on the final day of the session. The bill passed the Senate Monday night. It now goes to Gov. Rod Blagojevich who has said he will sign it.

The law adds "sexual orientation" to the state law that protects people from bias based on race, religion and similar traits. It applies to discrimination in jobs, housing, public accommodations or credit.

Opponents argued it would lead to approval of gay marriage in Illinois, supporters called it a basic human rights issue, saying discrimination of gays and lesbians over housing and employment is just as wrong as discriminating against people because of race or religion.
A recent poll sponsored by Equality Illinois shows that a wide majority of Illinois residents support granting civil rights protections to gays.

Louie Louie

My friend Anne (thanks, Anne!) forwarded me this: "From the blog of Louie Crew -- resident expert of gay folks in the Episcopal Church. It is in comment to the news that the Lutherans are getting ready to release a paper on gay folks. Louie also goes by the name Lutibelle....."

Bishop Rick Foss of the Eastern North Dakota Synod said he does not believe the church should change its policies on homosexuality, but he said the church must do a better job of relating to homosexuals. "We have to figure out how to care for God's people, including those who describe themselves as gay and lesbian," Foss said.

Yeah. We've been shaming them into silence for years, but it's not working anymore. More and more now insist on identifying who they are. We need to tell them that we don't really want to shame them; it's God that makes us do it. Even God will welcome them if they'll just stop loving each other. 'Whew! That's what happens when bowels are clogged with ecclesiastical concrete. They're supposed to be filled with mercy. Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy!

L.

If Michelangelo had been straight, he would have painted the Sistine Chapel off-white, with a roller. --Rita Mae Brown

Deal Breaker

Orson Scott Card is a noted science fiction author who has been recently hired to be the writer on a new Marvel comic book, Ultimate Iron Man. The "Ultimate" line is Marvel's re-envisioning and re-conceptualization of some of their core properties (Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Avengers, etc.) so that new readers will be encouraged to read these titles since they are unecumbered by the 40 years of historical baggage (continuity as we comic geeks say)that the main titles are saddled with.

However, Card is a noted and published homophobe and some small to-do has been made online about his hiring (for one example, see Prism Comic's "Open Letter to Marvel"). Paul O'Brian, a writer for the comic website 9th Art recently wrote an excellent article about Card and touches on the greater issue of homophobia in media.

First, go read Paul O'Brian's article at the 9th Art website before reading my following response to that article.

I think Paul has written an excellent and thoughtful article and I almost completely agree with him. However, I take exception to one of Paul's points as I reach a more definite conclusion.

Paul states that he thinks that Orson Scott Card's views "hardly place him miles outside mainstream opinion." Paul also opines that "you'd probably find a substantial proportion of the population that agree with him." I think Paul strikes a wrong note here. Although I completely agree that "[homophobia is] so widely held [that homophobes] cannot be confined to the mad and the stupid," I don't think that substantial numbers of Americans subscribe to the extremist viewpoints that Card holds. Card posits the downfall of civilization and the total debauchery of the human race squarely on the shoulders of homosexuals.

Americans have a much more complex and mixed view of homosexuality, however. They may believe some of the erroneous facts and assumptions that Card asserts, but the end result is much more interesting. In more in-depth polling by CBS and the New York Times weeks after the presidential election, only 2% of the population considered gay issues as a concern or factor in their voting. In a poll that has a margin of error of +/- 3%, that means 5% to less than nobody considers gay issues a significant political concern.

Clearly, Americans are divided on gay politicial issues, as well as on homosexuality in general. According to a poll conducted in April 2004 by the LA Times, 60% of Americans support some type of legal recognition for gay unions, although 6 in 10 believe homosexual realtionships are "against God's will." The CBS/NYT poll found about 50% of people in favor of some type of legal recognition for gay relationships. A majority of Americans do not support a Constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage.60% polled people "described themselves as sympathetic to the gay community" and would vote for a gay political candidate. Two-thirds would maintain a friendly relationship with a person they discovered was gay yet 6 in 10 would be upset to find out their child was gay. 6 in 10 felt that gays can be a good role model to children, but about half of the people wouldn't let a gay person baby-sit.

Not surprisingly, and as Paul points out, the younger generation is far more favorably disposed toward gays. the 18-29 crowd was four times more likely to favor same-sex marriage than people 65 and over.So, while clearly, the issue of gay rights and attitudes towards gay personally are a mixed bag, acceptance is on the rise. Particularly with the acceptance of the younger generation towards gays, many of the hotly contested issues we face today will be non-issues. And the misrepresentations and distortions that people such as Card project will no longer be accepted.

Even among these figures, I don't see the Card's ideas strongly represented. Undoubtably, they exist among the American population, but they don't have the stranglehold they once had. And, to fancy my own guess, based on my own interactions on-line and off, and given the 18-29 year old mindset towards gay issues, these ideas are not prominent or widely accepted in the comic reading community.

Which all then still boils down to Paul's question: does any of this matter?

I say a resounding "yes." I'm not sure Paul disagrees, except that we reach somewhat different conclusions. I think Card is well outside the mainstream, although his views are not confined to hicks, the insane, or the mentally deficient. Far too many people (at least half the nation, probably much more) hold on to some type of homophobic ideas and/or stereotypes. But even these prejudices and ignorant beliefs are not the extremist viewpoint of Card. And we shouldn't support ideas that are dangerous or just factually wrong, particularly when they can impact negatively on a segment of the population.

Paul comes precipitously close to, yet still manages to veer away from, the idea that homophobia is so wide-spread that we shouldn't care that one voice has been added to the dissonance. Still, and I say this in light of Paul's astute observations on tolerance, we should not tolerate such a strident and potentially harmful chord. Even if Paul is correct, and Card's homophobia reflects that of society at large, that does not negate the obligation to, as our super-hero comics have taught us, fight the wrong. Many gains in civil rights were made despite popular consensus. Most recently, laws against interracial marriages were struck down by courts (and "activist judges") while a majority of Americans still rejected the idea. I don't think Paul suggests this, but popular approval does not equate with being right.

I do not advocate censorship or even censureship. I would propose a boycott, but as Paul right points out, it's hard to boycott something you have never intended to buy. If you were going to buy this Iron Man series, however, I would ask you to spend your money elsewhere. I also propose writing to Marvel: not a campaign, not showering them with emails or letters, just one simple missive. Tell them that you wish they wouldn't employ people who publish hateful and misleading rhetoric and you won't buy the product of people who promote anti-gay (or, if there's another cause, whatever your cause) sentiment.

In this case, tell them that Card is a deal-breaker.

Common Cents: Then and Now

This message was forwarded to me and comes from a liberal youth site called Left Hook.

I think that an a useful comparison for leftists today to use when talking to people about Bush is the election of Richard Nixon in1968. The election that year took place in a context of growing social polarization and anger around the Vietnam War. In the spring of 1968, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam had demonstrated the incredible unpopularity and weakness of the U.S. occupation in that country.Nixon of course was a right-wing Republican, who had made his name as [a]vicious anti-Communist during the 1950s. His campaign was built around a deeply reactionary platform that included support for the War in Vietnam (though he did promise that he had a "secret plan"to end the War), opposition to court-ordered integration, a focus on "law-and-order," and strong defense of the status quo against the Black Power and womens' rights movements.

His opponent was Hubert Humphrey, a "liberal" Democrat and Lyndon Johnson's Vice-President. Humphrey supported the Vietnam War as well, although he said at the end of his campaign that he would like to bring the troops home. He was a pure establishment figure, as beholden as Nixon to the U.S. ruling-class, and was certainly not a "movement" candidate in any sense. Despite his support for the War, Humphrey had the backing of much of the anti-war movement. Many of those who had actively opposed the U.S.'s butchery inVietnam had been brought back into the Democratic Party during the primaries by Eugene McCarthy, a mixture of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. Like Kucinich and Dean, when McCarthy lost the nomination to Humphrey he handed all of his supporters over to the pro-war Democrat.

In the end, Nixon defeated Humphrey by less than 1 million votes in one of the closest election in American history. Many on the left were of course devastated, believing that the election had demonstrated a new rightward shift in American popular consciousness.

They were totally wrong. The 1968 election, a contest between two pro-war candidates, was never a referendum on what the U.S. was doing in Vietnam. In fact, in the period immediately following Nixon's election the United States experienced one of the most intense periods of mass radicalization ever. By 1969, 3 millionpeople were calling themselves revolutionaries. Opposition to theWar continued to grow, especially among working-class and poorAmericans. The continued resistance of the Vietnamese and the revolt of GIs in Vietnam augmented the expanding anti-war movement, creating the conditions that eventually would force the U.S. out of Vietnam.

Moreover, despite Nixon's deeply reactionary personal politics, the power of the social movements in this country forced him to offer a series of other concessions. Under Nixon, federal spending on social services increased substantially, the first affirmative action programs were created, abortion was legalized, and the death penalty was (for four years) declared unconstitutional. The left right now needs to be real clear. We oppose everything that George Bush stands for, everything that he wants to do. But Bush's reelection, like Nixon's election in 1968, doesn't mean that the game is up; it doesn't mean that people in this country are just right-wing and that's all there is to it.

The left needs to do what John Kerry and the Democratic Party never could: offer people a genuine alternative to what's going down right now. Polls consistently show right now that people are feeling particularly vulnerable and insecure about their lives and their futures. People are looking for answers, for people to blame. If the only solutions they're hearing are reactionary solutions they're going to move in that direction. But if the left can tap into the growing anger about the Iraq War, about stagnating wages and job losses, about unaffordable health care and racism, we can build movements that can present people with alternative, progressive solutions.

In this project we have some allies, most importantly the resistance in Iraq and the growing disgust in the army about the occupation. The U.S. ruling-class is facing serious contradictions right now, and we cant't forget that. The only way that Bush's reelection is going to kill us is if we get so demoralized that we give up on the movements.

Jonah Birch, ISO, Columbia University

Common Cents: The Liberals are Coming, The Liberals are Coming

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel. I've been wondering to myself for a while now how long before we cycle to a more liberal era in America. More specificially, I've postulated to myself that once Gen X'er's kids starting growing up and entering college and Gen X'ers begin to age and take the positions of power and authority held by the Boomers currently (whom I largely blame for the conservative morass we've been living in) we'd see some type of switch in values, and probably one is more liberal. (As a side bar - I think that the Millenials - the current college generation - the mini-van generation - whose annoying tendency toward self-centeredness and reliance on helicopter Mom and Pop who jump to the rescue of their 25 year old baby - will be replaced by a generation of kids who parents tell them to go out and do it on their own).

Looks like my prediction may not be so far off according to FuturesWatch (thanks Petey for the link):

"To gain an understanding of the shifts occurring in American society, it is necessary to look at political and social trends reaching as far back as the American Revolution. An analysis of these trends reveals a consistent pattern of shifts between conservative and liberal values in the United States . The cyclic shifts (or swing of the pendulum, if you prefer) occur over a period of roughly 25 to 30 years.
If this two-century old pattern holds true, the United States is in the midst of a major transition from conservative to liberal social and political values, with 2004 being dead center in the transition period.
An analysis to American trends and events across religion, morality, philosophy, and human rights reveals a series of "conservative" and "liberal" periods over the life of the nation. The most recent "conservative" period began in the late-1970s and reached its peak between 1994 and 1998. Conservative dominance of the American social and political landscape, though still potent (as the 2004 elections demonstrated), has begun to ebb.
As the pendulum begins to swing back towards the liberal end of the political spectrum, the nature of American politics and policies will change. But because of the lag time between the beginning of social change and its appearance in the public (and therefore political) eye, it may well be another five to 10 years before the United States begins to show significant evidence of this change"

A Leauge of Their Own

An interesting point, if a bit ranty and not overly original, made by Robert Jones Jr. at Gay League, a site devoted to a gay comic collectors, mostly because the point is made during a review of a recent major comic published by DC (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc.):

For the whole review, click here.

"Whole societies are founded on the misguided assumption that since women are, for the most part, not as physically powerful as men, they are naturally inferior. They are the "weaker sex." In order to come to such a conclusion, it is necessary to build a system that both values physical prowess and devalues those other human attributes, such as intelligence, creativity and spirituality (as separate from man-made religion), where the physically dominant may be rivaled or exceeded. I believe that this is why the average person can tell you how many home runs Sammy Sosa has hit, but cannot have a meaningful conversation about the physics behind it, nor can they discuss the socio-political or historical circumstances that may have guided Sosa, and others like him, towards the sport in the first place.

We exist in a place where it still seems perfectly legal, where it is considered logical and acceptable that women, on average, are paid 72% of what men are paid to do the exact same work; a place that only recently thought of women as citizens eligible to exercise their civic duty to vote or have a voice in government (in some places); a place where women are expected to cover their bodies, turn control of their biological and reproductive choices over to men, to serve Kings and to serve a male god who insists that Eve was created from the womb of Adam (even if that is a biological impossibility). We have the benefit of living in the most progressive and advanced society on Earth and yet, in the year 2004, we still have not chosen a woman to lead this nation and most studies say that if a female candidate were to run today, she would be overwhelmingly defeated on the sole basis of her gender. Women are not only expected to be the receptacles for man's collective and delusional bull$#!+, but they are also required to be so with fearful, Aunt Jemima-style grins etched into their faces. It is my belief that this negative view of all things feminine also explains, at least in part, society's particular, peculiar and overpowering hatred for male homosexuality, in which the male is perceived to take on those qualities thought of as female. "

Old Anxiety

Or Old Ang's Eye, whoever Ang is...of course I used to think that my mother's soap opera started out with "This is my danged carrot...and thes are the 'Days of Our Lives'" - it was McDonald Carrey, if you're curious - the announcer).

Lately there have been a few tidbits of gay news to rant on, but I've been unable to muster anything of interest to say about them. I will briefly mention that I'm most recently ticked off by South Carolina state Senator John Graham Altman, who helped set up South Carolina Public Television (to help educate all areas of the state) is threatening to withdraw funding because it aired a documentary of gays of the South and is therefore promoting a pro-gay agenda with state money. Of course no state money was used to air that documentary, only private donations, but that has not stopped the threat of cutting their funding (so much for caring about education). Altman, who seems fixated on gays, said that "we have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to the definition of education" and, obviously, promoting gays as being ok is too far.

Yes, let's sell only one product in the marketplace of ideas, shall we? Here's an online copy of the story.

In related news, Jesse Helm's granddaughter is reportedly lesbian and partnered, though not out (for fear her grandfather would have nothing to do with her) and a North Carolina Republican district court judge (in a state where the Republican party platform unequivocably states that "homosexuality is not normal"). Hello Mary Cheney redux. Perhaps the former senator might change his views on gays if he found out that his granddaughter was in fact, not the spawn of Satan (the grandspawn of Satan, yes).

But enough with this - it's time for my annual resolutions. For other people. It's more fun and a lot less taxing on me.

Be it resolved that:

#1. The American public and media not fixate on crimes, though sensational, would not have garnered half the attention had it not involved photogenic white middle-class people.

#2. Nobody should give any more attention to Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears. I mean really, people - enough with the slutting of America. Neither is talented and Brittany is only marginally cute. Here is the true moral decline of America - sick Michael Powell on Paris.

#3. George W Bush reinstate Tecumseh's Curse (ok, not really, just a very potent case of Montezuma's Revenge).

#4. Everyone drop the whole red/blue state thing, particularly those people who are obnoxiously smug and self-congratulatory for living in a blue state. I've lived in the South my entire life and frankly I love the South, regardless of its problems and modern proclivity toward hate-spewing Republicans. Furthermore, somebody has to live in the red states and do something to help change the status quo while you sit comfortably numb bitching in your blue womb. Lastly, the past three cities of residence went blue, so whooptie-freaking-do.

#5. Jesus appears on national television to let the religious right know how bad they're fucking this whole Christianity thing up. And to get "Touched by an Angel" off the air forever.

#6. Speaking of which, Jerry Faldwell has really plumped up. Get some lipo, Jerry. You're so fat you make Baby Jesus cry.

#7. You will discover that there is a comic book for you ("graphic novel" is the modern term). You will shed the Pow!Biff! stereotype to realize that whatever your interest: gay life, biography, history, romance, murder mystery, crime fiction, science fiction, westerns, etc. you can find a comic you will enjoy.

#8. The FMA becomes the "Full Marriage Amendment" making it impossible to discriminate against same-sex couple civil marriage.

#9. George W Bush sees the Wizard for a brain.

#10. Americans just get over their hang-ups with queers. Y'all ain't that hot.

Don We Now (you know where I'm going with this)

With Christmas coming up, I want to give myself the gift of rambling.

First, I still believe in the spirit of our highly-commercialized and pagan-festival-orientated holiday. Puritans outlawed it for having nothing to do with the birth of Christ, but we don't have any great indication of when that happened exactly, so why not now? Why not celebrate during the winter solstice, when the world (or at least our hemisphere of it) is at its darkest, acknowledge and hold up light, goodness, and love. Christ was and is about reconciling people to God - and, yes, Virginia, I do believe in God, and showing them how much they are loved. Not condemned, not hated, not excluded, not marginalized.

And I believe in the transformative power of God's love (along with action on our part) to change the hearts and minds of those who want to practice (and legalize) their bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. I'm tempted to fully elaborate my "darkest before the dawn / light in darkness" allegory to the currrent state of all things gay in America, but I won't, as my holiday gift to you.

Christmas carols - I love them, but rarely the ones I love the most. They're all great except Jingle Bell Rock which must be pre-programmed to play just as I turn on the radio. But my very, very favorites are rarely heard.

Good King Wenceslas

Do You Hear What I Hear

We Three Kings

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen

I just realized my top three carols all involve kings - queen envy perhaps?

And what tops my Christmas list this year, he says in full-commercialized, pagan-holiday reborn mode?

Planet Simpson

The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things

The Ultimate Matrix Collection

The Art of the Incredibles

Looney Tunes Vol 2 DVD

Persepolis

The Complete Far Side

The True History of Chocolate

Spellbound

All of that just for a peek inside my twisted little mind, not so that you'll go to Amazon and look up my wish list and order me something. No really. Aww, you shouldn't have.

Heaven Help Us

The following news item (found on 365gay.com) fills me with complete dread:

(Atlanta, Georgia) Thousands of African Americans marched Saturday to denounce same-sex marriage, invoking the name of slain civil rights leader martin Luther King to the anger of many gays and lesbians.

The march was organized by Bishop Eddie Long whose New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is one of the biggest black churches in the country.

The unofficial parade count was set at 15,000.

The church's website called the march a rally for traditional marriage and proclaims marriage between one man and one woman must be protected. Long has called for a national ban on same-sex marriage.

Standing with him at the King Center was Bernice King, one of King's daughters who is an elder in Long's church. Bernice King lit a torch at her father's grave and passed it on to Long, who carried it through the march. "I believe this day will go down in the history books as the greatest showing of Christ and His kingdom in this century," she said, calling Long and her father prophets.

Her participation in the rally and march illustrated the deep divisions both within the black community and the King over same-sex marriage. Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, has said on a number of occasions that her husband would have supported gay marriage.
"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages," she said during a speech last March at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Today's march also angered gay civil rights leaders who accused Long of hijacking Dr King's memory.

The National Black Justice Coalition, the country's only national gay black organization, issued a statement prior to the march calling it "a slap in the face to the legacy of Dr. King." (story)

"Dr. King said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, but Bishop Long seems to think that injustice against gays and lesbians is perfectly fine," said NBJC Board president Keith Boykin.

Boykin also noted that one of King's closest advisers, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay man.

I am deeply thankful of the stance that Mrs. Coretta Scott has taken in regards to gay marriage. I am embarrassed for Dr. and Mrs. King that their daughter does not share her parents' view of equality for all Americans.

Although I loathe the intolerance and hatred of all Christians regarding gays, I am especially troubled by this perspective by black Christians. It is both ignorant and hypocritical. Any black person coming out against gay rights is effectively announcing that we are not entitled to the same rights he/she acquired. It's a selfish attitude: I have mine and I won't share. It belittles the huge contribution of Bayard Rustin to black civil rights. Mr. Rustin was a close advisor to Dr. King. He would willingly hide in a car if he was riding with Dr. King because others felt uncomfortable with him being a known homosexual. He sacrificed his own self-worth and identity so a movement would prosper. Black civil rights could not have happened without white/majority allies, yet these men and women will not be allies for those in a different minority. These are small, selfish, deeply bigoted people.

It is a monumental display of ignorance. Black Christians who would use the Bible against homosexuals should remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery and prohibitions against black civil rights and interracial marriage. Fearful and hateful white people twisted the Bible to use it as a weapon against you and now you take this rifle, passed on to you from other bigots, and hold it to the temple of gay civil rights.

This is ignorance of what the Bible truly says about gays and gay marriage. It is ignorance of the revelations God continues to give us about His Word and how to use it for modern times. Women may now speak in church, slavery is not acceptible, and the only law we are bound to is the Law of Love.

It is fantastically ignorant of the fact that your rights are untouchable. Black people had to fight hard to gain them, but they are hardly secure. There are those in power who would happily rob you of them right from under your nose. It will start with gays, but it will creep into the black community through limiting the rights of black muslims and continue through other "dissident" groups. All Americans' rights have already been infringed upon by the Patriot Act; a minority group's rights are even more unstable and unsure.

It is this shameful ignornace that recalls another minister, whose words are often repeated, but cannot be heard enough:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned. "

Pastor Martin Niemoller , survivor of the Nazi Holocaust.

Ape Nation

Warren Ellis, a writer of some of the best comic books you can read today (and if you're not reading comic books, you should be - get over the Bam! Pow! Whap! stereotype - some of the best art can be found in comics today) sent this today over his mailing list "Bad Signal" (Warren is a Brit, btw):

I think it was after [the second Presidential debate] that some BushPR handler went off at a journalist, claiming that people out in the great Heartland of America were going for Bush because, quote, "they like the way he walks, they like the way he talks, they like the way he points to things." That weird alpha-monkey gait of his, with the palms facing backwards and the squared shoulders, is actually an ape-community tell denoting the leader.

Seriously.Clear Channel, the monolithic radio entity over there, has just bought in Fox as their news provider. Fox, of which I've had only the briefest of tastes, seems to me to be basically a right-wing den of liars. It's no wonder Air America are hysterical -- the right wing have sold the idea that the media is liberal and that their voice is the underdog. Meanwhile, you need to sacrifice a goat and pray for a strong north wind to be able to receive Air America in much ofthe country. And when left-wing thought does break wide, as in the works of Michael Moore -- well, that just proves the media is liberal, right?

Can the American right wing really be damned for learning how to play the game better than the left? When the Liberal Voice is making it this easy for them? Ann Coulter may be Crazy and Evil, but she's funny.People are currently up in arms over her comments about Canada, but, you know, she's on TV. She's paid to be a dancing monkey. You want people to pay less attention to her? Dance better.

Common Cents

There's still hope even in the wilderness...

From 365gay.com

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has signed an Executive Order prohibiting employment discrimination against gay and lesbian state government employees. The Order also requires any business contracting with the state to have a non-discrimination policy covering their lesbian and gay workers.
The order is almost identical to the one signed by Governor Edwin Edwards at the beginning of his last term, but also includes harassment.

The order bans harassment and discrimination on the part of supervisors in their dealings with state workers. It also applies to state employees in their dealings with residents seeking benefits or services from the state.
"Because her order includes state service contracts, it reaches into the private sector, thereby protecting even more minority citizens from employment discrimination," said Christopher Daigle, a spokesperson for Equality Louisiana.

Must Not-See TV

And following ABC's unnecessary and insulting piece on Matthew Shepard's murder, follows CBS and NBC with their own particular pandering to the Religious Right.

These bozos are refusing to run an add by the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the fundamentalist protestant denomination Church of Christ) that shows gays, a black woman, a hispanic man and other minority groups being turned away by two bouncers at church doors while a white traditional family is let through. The add then continues "Jesus didn't turn away people. Neither do we." You can view the video here.

NBC refuses to air based on no airing controversial ads. Suggesting that some churches don't include some populations is apparently a dangerous and radical message.

CBS allegedly told the UCC that "[b]ecause this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast." CBS now refuses to comment on whether they actual said this or not, although they confirm the ad banned. Perhaps that is for the best given that the ad says nothing even remotely related to same-sex marriage. Clearly CBS has picked up on the message the the FMA (or now the Marriage Protection Amendment) isn't truly about protecting marriage, but further marginalizing gays and lesbians as something other than an American citizen and certainly not as a person of worth.

I like what Rev. John Thomas, UCC general minister and president, has to say about all of this: "It is ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial. We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to the church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."

Other stations airing it include AMC, BET, Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, History, Nick@Nite, TBS, TNT, Travel and TV Land. Of particular interest is that ABC Family will air it (and did - I saw it while watching old Rankin Bass animation Christmas specials).

Looks like I'm going to have to quit watching all the mainstream channels...and I was so enjoying the Apprentice this season. Survivor has been fun too and decidedly lestastic (although it seems like some creative editing omitted a kiss between one couple during a surprise visit to the island).

Sooner or later I'm going to get around to posting my recant of the role that moral values (specificially religious fundamentalist values) played in this election. Although seemingly significant, further analysis suggests that the Relgious Right, while still dangerous, and obviously with a firm grip on the testicles of CBS and NBC, didn't play quite as significant a role as perhaps they (and we) think they did.

It's a travesity that for all the crap and dreck these networks spend money to push the receding intellect of America even further that they can't be bothered to accept revenue from somebody with a positive, affirming message. However, the problem isn't that UCC is too controversial or advocating any stance. The problem is they are challenging the status quo. They dared to send a message that might cause Mr. or Mrs. America to think they aren't as tolerant, broad-minded, or fair as they care to think they are. UCC had the audacity to confront the modern-day pharisees and tell them that they are not practicing the love and inclusion that Christ lived and taught. It's not a feel-good namby pamby "boy I could have figured that out for myself if I had half a brain" The More You Know segment. It hits people where it matters. For some that feels good, for others it hurts. And when you tackle the bully, the bully tries to shut you down.

Info from 356gay.com and beliefnet for resources on this story

The Art and Science of Biblical Interpretation

One of my best friends, John, who is a medical doctor, married, father of two, agnostic, lives in a small eastern Tennessee town, and all around swell guy sent the following email to me:

My bible reading project has not started yet. Sodom and Gamora is the most often quoted argument I hear around hear, and usually just the fact that I bring up an alternative view of why Sodom and Gamora are destroyed they start backpeddeling which tells me that most people use the Bible to argue position having never read the source. They are simply taking someone elses interpretation.

In medicine (which is more art than science every day that I practice) I used to take as fact things that were taught to me by respected professors.
Now that I have read some of the source material myself I have found many things in medicine are done on tradition and there is no good evidence for some practices. So I can imagine if I have come across so many instances of misinterpretation in medicine that Biblical lore is probably worse.

John explained in his initial email to me that people around him constantly bring up Sodom and Gomorrah when explaining the sins of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. But, as I explained to John, that's one of the worst passages they could use to justify their righteous indignation.

If you start thinking about it, it's hard to see a story involving gang rape as an indictment against consentual homosexual relationships. It's gets a little more difficult when you realize that Lot offers his daughters to appease the violent crowd. I don't think female virgins would placate a mob of rabid queers.When the the prophet Ezekiel discusses this incident later, he states the sin specifically: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49 -KJV)

So, please pick a more artful argument next time.

But John makes an excellent point about the art of Biblical interpretation. While John continues to erode the little trust I had in modern medicine with his revelations of how so much of it is a guessing game, he properly illuminates a problem with modern theology, particularly within the evangelical/fundamentalist community.

Most followers don't take the time to check out the source material. They believe what they are fed by popular pundits, local pastors, tradition or even fictional literature. (The Left Behind series is an immensely popular book series based on a particular interpretation of the Book of Revelations, a theological bent that the authors insist is The Truth.) Modern church-goers might know their Bible verses forward and backwards and follow along when prompted during sermons, but few take time to truly read the Bible contextually. And this type of reading is no easy task.

Reading any book is more work than people typically consider. There is a whole field of study on the reading process and how we make meaning of what we read. Even casting the process of reading aside, when reading the Bible, one must read it with the appropriate surrounding text to understand the full context. To single any one verse out, as many ministers seem to base their sermons on, actually robs that verse of its full meaning. Nobody would dream of reading any other book or poem this way, yet modern Christians regularly use the Bible verse by out-of-context verse.

Understanding the Bible is further complicated by the need to understand some the words' original meanings in Hebrew or Greek. You have to understand ancient culture. You have to understand that some words were used differently than they are now and a direct translation of the word does not necessarily convey the author's intended meaning or frame of reference. All of these components, and more, is fundamental to truly understanding what is being said. How many evangelicals even know that the gospels were handed down orally and were not transcribed until decades after those events happened? How many understand the concept of the synoptic gospels? I certainly never learned these things in church, and I doubt many people do.

Given all the work it takes to understand the words that have been passed down to us, it's not surprising that most people don't undertake it (many probably are not aware that this much work is necessary). Instead, interpretation is left up to ministers, who while certainly qualified, are trained in certain traditions and schools of theology, bringing their own biases, prejudices, preconceptions, and, yes, agendas into the interpretive mix. I often wonder how many ministers get to seminary, come to different conclusions that what they are being taught based on their own work, yet still go along with the denominational line because that is an easier path to tread.

Karl Marx said that relgion is the opium of the masses. And, for those churches that do not teach their parishioners about how to read the Bible for themsleves, he's right. I certainly believe that fundamentalism, a characteristic of the Religious Right, is an anti-intellectual movement. It ignores or belittles a historical-critical analysis of the Bible. Fundamentalism insists that you turn off your brain not just at the church door, but at the Bible cover.

Common Cents

And interrupting my blogging flow for a quick news check will be my new semi-regular featurette (semi-regular meaning whenever I feel like mentioning something without adding much commentary to it) Common Cents.

Common Cents will be quick news snippets that show some positive event or progress for gay people, particularly here in the States.

To inaugurate this new feature, we have from the November 30th edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education:

"Colleges that bar military recruiters from their campuses because the armed forces discriminate against gay men and lesbians cannot be penalized with the loss of federal funds, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled on Monday.

In the 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said the Constitution's guarantee of free speech prohibits the government from requiring colleges to endorse a message they disagree with. The decision halts enforcement of a decade-old law, known as the Solomon Amendment, that allows the government to withhold Department of Defense money from colleges that do not provide access to military recruiters.

Last month, Congress expanded the law to apply to colleges that do not provide the recruiters with access "equal in quality and scope" to that offered to nonmilitary recruiters. Such institutions are now barred from receiving funds from the Defense Department and defense-related funds from other federal agencies as well.

In the past, some law schools have limited military recruiters' access to their campuses because the Defense Department's policy of excluding openly gay men and women from the military services ran afoul of the schools' antidiscrimination policies. Warrington S. Parker III, a lawyer for a coalition of law schools and others challenging the Solomon Amendment, said Monday's decision means that colleges can again "follow their nondiscrimination policies."

...

Daniel Mach, a lawyer who represented the American Association of Law Schools, said that nondiscrimination policies send an "important message of diversity and tolerance" that is "vitally important to law schools' mission."

The court, in an opinion written by Judge Thomas L. Ambro, found that the Solomon Amendment violated colleges' First Amendment rights by compelling them to "propagate, accommodate and subsidize the military's message." The ruling cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a gay assistant scoutmaster because "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with ... the Scout oath."

"Just as the Boy Scouts believed that 'homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Scout Oath,' ... the law schools believe that employment discrimination is inconsistent with their commitment to justice and fairness," the opinion states.

"The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this ruling," the opinion concludes. "

Crucified Again

Although I agree with some that Matthew Shepard, as a very disturbed and troubled young man, has become far too mythic in proportion, the heinousness of the crime perpetrated upon him cannot be overstated. The immensely cruel and brutal evil that befell poor Matthew is unthinkable and cannot be forgotten. And while we cannot live in fear of the same happening to us, we must never think we are immune from such inexplicable violence.

And, yet, somehow ABC decided to run a story that would suggest that the men who tortured and killed Matthew did so out essentially because of a drug deal gone bad, rather than because he was gay.

And my first response is, "does it matter why they killed him?" And not just killed him, but tortured and crucified the boy. It reeks of someone trying to make excuses. It reeks of a media outlet trying to pander to a perception that many viewers are anti-gay.

In any event, this sort of investigation provides no redeeming feature or merit. It advances no cause, except perhaps the one that would see Matthew as the creator and ultimate reaper of his own circumstances. The insinuation appears to be that had Matthew not been a drug-adled queer looking for sinful man-sex, he would still be alive.

I normally would not weigh in on a program I had not personally viewed. I was, and still am, so offended at the basic premise of the show, however, I could not bring myself to watch it. Even if the show managed to convince me that it wasn't a gay-bashing to the nth degree (and that would take a lot of convincing) , it wouldn't change the fact that the man in question is a killer and his vicitm, regardless of his faults, didn't deserve death, particularly a slow, inhumane, degrading death.

I would boycott ABC, but they don't have anything of quality on to watch in the first place. For responses to the "news" story aired on 20/20, you can start by visiting
GLAAD's analysis of the story

the response of the Matthew Shepard Foundation

Also echoing many of my statements, along with some additional insights, are John Rowe's observations here.

On Golden Porn

I've been out of town for both work and vacation the past two weeks, and during that time so much happened that I hardly know where to start. Topics cover the spectrum of the rainbow to frivolous to the deadly serious.

Let's start with some levity before we dive into deeper waters.

From VH1's Best Week Ever segment "What You're Celebrating This Year":

If you bought The Golden Girls Season 1, you're celebrating cosmopolitans, tiny dogs, and hot sweaty man on man sex.

I presume they're not referring to any nude scenes with Bea Arthur.