The Religious Right is Oh So Wrong

The public image of the leaders of the religious right I met with so many times also contrasted with who they really were. In public, they maintained an image that was usually quite smooth. In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement.

—Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God (selection quoted in "oldspeak," an online journal)


Frank Schaeffer is the son of evangelical minister Francis Schaeffer. Together they had a significant impact on American Evangelical Christianity, essentially forming the modern Religious Right movement. Frank's life journey, which has led him to be a filmmaker and prolific author, as well as the father of a marine who served in Iraq, has brought him to the writing of a memoir called Crazy for God that focuses not just on his life, but the lives of his parents, many Evangelical leaders and the Religious Right movement.

Below are select quotes of his during various interviews. These interviews are either printed in their entirety at or linked through his website. Please go visit FrankSchaeffer.com for more of his insights as well as to learn about him and his works.

I became aware of Schaeffer through the Bob Edwards Sunday (12/9/07) broadcast, where Schaeffer gave a fascinating interview. Unfortunately the Edwards broadcast requires purchasing a copy, but fortunately many of Schaeffer's points and insights are captured in other interviews, exerpts of which appear below.

I was profoundly impacted by his thoughts on how modern Christianity is a cult of personality; that all one has to do is say the right things at the right time to the right people to make millions virtually overnight. He describes modern Evangelicals as hungry for the next big person, forgetting those who become tainted or imbroiled in scandal; the focus has gone off of Christ and onto people. In a similar vein, in another radio interview (link below), he discusses the Disney-fication of American Christianity.

Schaeffer was particularly insightful about the Religious Right being anti-American. Members of the Religious Right are striving, hoping for, and amplyifying the signs for their apocyliptic vision of the world. He discusses how they revel in bad fortune and outcomes because it enforces their view that, as Jerry Falwell once put it, God has removed his hand of protection from America because of its sins.

Slightly less fascinating, but strangely comforting was his insight into the nasty character of figures like Dobson and Falwell. Both he and his father thought that Pat Robertson was just plain insane, a sad confirmation of what most people suspect. He certainly does not spare George W. Bush, pointing out that he believes Bush to be a sincere Evangelical, which makes him all the more dangerous as president since he believes in the rightness of his actions, sincerely believes that he is in league with God and so fails to properly contemplate and consider the situation fully and to look for points of compromise, so sure is he of his actions.

I had hoped to bring you some direct quotes from the interview; my personal summation is lacking; Schaeffer spoke far more eloquently. Hopefully, these other interviews will provide you with a good idea of his eloquence and pointed and unique insights. What follows are his words.


Interview with John W. Whitehead

A lot of people in the evangelical and fundamentalist communities speak theoretically about homosexuality being no worse than adultery or divorce. However, in practice, they are not undertaking national campaigns to single out evangelical people who were married to somebody else at one time and got divorced. So actually there is a tremendous moral hypocrisy there because the whole gay issue has been singled out for special treatment.

In other words, the Religious Right was as negative and anti-American as anybody I ever talked to on the Left. I personally came to believe that a lot of the issues that were being latched onto by the Christian Right, whether it was the gay issue or abortion or other things, were actually being used for negative political purposes. They were used to structure a power base for people who then threw their weight around.

[The Religious Right's] idea was that without fundamentalist Christian beliefs being absolutely imperative for everybody in the country, the country would go to hell in a handcart and that would be the end of everything. So negative things were always accentuated. ... By the time they tell you over and over about all the bad things happening, such as statistics on crime, teen pregnancy and so on, I begin to get the feeling that they don’t want things to get better. This is their shtick. This is the way they raise their money. This is how they maintain their central power base.

[George W. Bush] is arguably the worst president in the history of the United States. He is unfit for the office of president of the United States. He has trouble speaking the English language and articulating a point of view....It is ironic that someone who proclaims he is a Christian president has single-handedly started a war that has undone the last Christian minority in the Middle East.


Schaeffer to the Dallas Morning News

"Unless you know who you are and have a life outside of your ministry, you will be corrupted by the control you have over other people's lives. You can begin with the best intentions, but the success itself will take you farther away from God than any failure ever will.
Big-time American Christianity is incompatible with the Gospel. It is part of the entertainment business. No matter what you think you are doing, you are really just another celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture. If you want to serve God, get out of the evangelical machine while you still can and save yourself. "

No matter how good a cause, when you think you are on a mission from God you eventually get crazy. I wasn't exempt. The problem is that the evangelical world is really a series of personality cults. And for a while there I was a personality.

But this brings up another point: Evangelicals just don't "get" what writing – or art for that matter – is.
The problem with the evangelical slant on writing (and all art) is that in itself it isn't worthwhile, it must serve some "higher purpose." In the evangelical's case, that's "bringing people to Christ."
This reduces human expression to propaganda. It also means that no artistic conversation is honest. There is always an ulterior motive. Religious fundamentalists always look for what is not there.

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back

Interfaith Radio Interview with Frank Schaeffer (about 20 mins)

FrankSchaeffer.com

Oldspeak

New Revised Fundamentalist Bible Translation

From the Really New Testament:
1.And. lo, Jesus said, "Go forth and spit upon the homosexual. Curse him in public; defile his name to all. From him take from his property, job, family, and hope. Hit him upon the cheek; if he turns it, smite him yet again. Smite him with seven upon seven blows. Show no mercy; turn all against him. Once thou hast cast down the sodomite, feel free to indulge thy lust watching women who lie with women.

2. "Sit upon high in thy mega-church casting judgment upon all who art not members. Render unto the politicians what e'er may gain their favor to further my work. Impose my will upon all creation."

Well, it seems like this is what they are reading...

Russian Evangelicals responsible for Sacramento gay man's death.

100 Movies, 100 Quotes, 100 Numbers

This is a lot of fun.

And I thought Dubya was backwards

Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients (via Yahoo! News)

Who is more of a threat to progress: Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney? Discuss.

Compare and Contrast

Charlotte Rae with Liz Taylor. Show your work.

Missus Garrett is a Potty Mouth!

I'm so disillusioned!

You, Sissy?

I recently entered into a discussion about the appropriateness ofhumor about homosexuality in popular media. First, humor is subjective; I have on more than one occassion strongly disagreed with how gay organizations (GLAAD most notably) have reacted to gay depicitions. Still, I understand where the sentiment originates and why people are very sensitive about it.

I think that sensitivity comes from years of unbalanced representation. Most of the earliest American popular media depictions of homosexuals made us into predators or silly nancy-boys, worse than even women, perhaps even negroes. And, of course, very real societal /religious persecution doesn't help exposed nerves and raw sensitivities much.

I do sometimes think that over-reactions or getting up in arms about what I perceive as the wrong things hurt "the cause", as it were; after all, we don't want to show ourselves as the sissies they think we are, do we? There's nothing worse than being a sissy; nothing worse than not being able to take that "playful" punch on the shoulder; nothing worse than crying when the bully beats you up. Real men don't cry.

There is a concern among some of the brethren that we gays are pushing for legislated acceptance. While some may be trying to accomplish that, I don't personally need to legislate acceptance of my gaiety. I do think that a gurantee of my rights needs to be legislated; otherwise, hey, this is America and you are free to hate me as long as you like as long as you grant me my rights.

But really, in this quest for civil rights, do we have to be so uptight that we can't take a joke? We gays are pretty funny, right? The straights will like us better if they can make those hairdresser and interior decorator jokes about us, won't they? (See "not being a sissy" above.) For me, sure, we can joke all around all day if I know that you're in my corner or that you're at least an equal opportunity abuser (and also that I can joke about your secret desire for the lawn boy to blow you).

Recently I was watching a documentary on Don Rickles, a man who has been insulting everybody for the past 40 years or more. Many comedians noted that Rickles can "get away with it" because he applies the insults equally. I'm pretty okay with the fag jokes from him, because, hey, he's throwing it about every other minority (and majority) group. Does Kathy Griffin or Margaret Cho want to crack some gay jokes? Go ahead, they've shown their friend. Dave Chapelle? He takes a crack at just about everyone and does it intelligently (which often is another qualifying element about whether it is funny or tasteful, for me at least), so okay. South Park? Well, that show has offended me on a lot of stuff, so why not add homosexuality to the list.

Speaking of Chapelle, he once commented on the Actor's Studio that he received a lot of flack from his relatives about a lot of his skits and particularly his use of the "N" word. Although it didn't/doesn't stop him, he essentially said he understood their concerns, since sometimes he wants to punch out white guys using the word because they think it's okay since they saw it on TV (and they found it funny). I have a similar reaction; I'll be the first one to make a joke about us gays but damn it, straight boy, you better not say a word.

I've heard the accusation frequently: why can't we take a joke? Why are us gays drowning in a gloomy and unfriendly quagmire of PCiety? But we seem to be one of the few populations that the accusation sticks to (well, us, and women. Broads can be so uptight you know.) Don Imus was thrown off the air for (a very poor) "joke" about black women, and that's one example. Yes, some people thought it was an overreaction, but overall it didn't stick. These kind of "jokes" are not tolerated by society, and generally it is accepted that this is not a being overly sensitive, unless you're talking about the gays, who are, for some reason, perhaps because they're so feminine.

I think the questioning of gays' sensitivity by other gays is actually rooted in the need for acceptance. We may say we don't care if we are accepted, but if so, then why care if somebody lodges a complain we find baseless or unnecessary? Why label it with "whining" or as hyper-sensitive or PC? We do so because we're afraid we'll be seen as different, as a sissy, as not mainstream, as not being able to play well with others, and all of that leads to non-acceptance. If we truly didn't care about what people thought, we'd just ignore what we thought were baseless complaints instead of labeling it as "humorless" or "whining." We so badly don't want to be seen as a sissy.

If Pat Roberson is on it, it's the highway to hell

Certain fundamentalist Christians believe that Interstate 35 is related to prophecies in Isaiah 35 (Isaiah 35:8 refers to a "highway...of holiness") and so have set up ministries along its route.

Wayne Besen has the video (from Right Wing Watch).

These people think that an American interstate is mentioned in the Bible? That's just, well, arrogant, not to mention stupid.

I also found absurb the "converted" homosexual in the clip. He mentions that he was going from gay club to gay club prior to being on his way to see his fiance when he encountered the evangelists. He says he felt like he was "on acid" when the evangelists told him "fire" and touched him. A couple of things: gay men refer to their significant others several ways - partner, husband, boyfriend, etc., but I've never heard one refer to another many as "fiance." So, perhaps this allegedly converted homosexual was on his way to meet his female wife-to-be? I know that when I was about to become engaged that I very much thought that my feelings about men would go away; had an evangelist approached me during this time with the offer to "take away" my homosexuality, I would have been eager to take him up on the offer (and then act like it had been successful). And second, perhaps you were on acid if you were traveling between gay bars.

One of the other alleged converts was "a back slidden youth pastor." Think this guy might be feeling a little guilty? Think he might also be eager to think and act like he has been changed? Maybe a little.

And from a pure theological perspective, I'm tired of the claims of faith healing (prove it, guys, seems like it would be a huge news item) and the non-Biblical use of tongues and the Holy Spirit. Of course these people aren't interested in sound theology, just using Christianity as their modus operandi to impose their world vision and oppress people different from them.

More Woes For Larry Craig

According to the Associated Press, the newspaper the Idaho Statesmen reports that eight men have said that Senator Larry Craig made sexual advances toward them, with two actually having sex with him. One of these eight is now famed male prostitute Mike Jones, known for bringing down the Reverend Ted Haggard. Craig, of course, denies the accusations (yet again).

Do I believe at least that some of the accusations are true ? Yes.
Do I believe Mike Jones? Not really.
Does it matter? Not really.

I think it's been pretty well established that Craig is a major self-loathing homosexual, trapped in a closet made out of two-way glass. (We can see in, he can't see out). It would be easy to feel sorry for him except that he has used his political power to bash other gay people.

This development really is of minimal interest except to see how Craig continues to twist in the wind, with no supporters (except his in-denial wife), and works to save...what, I'm not sure. His political career is in shambles now, his public persona is completely discredited, so the only thing left that I can think of left to save is his personal self-image. If he can continue to shake off the accusations, he can convince himself somehow that he hasn't been after dick all this time, he's just been misunderstood.

Denial is a powerful force and leads to the dark side, Luke. I'm sure when Senator Craig takes a copy of Men's Health into the bathroom, he's just wanting the latest workout tips.

Not Weight Loss, but Self Gain

Most of us have seen countless weight loss stories on TV; in some respects, this is no different but I was moved by this woman's perspective on her situation after losing 500 pounds without surgery.

Interview with Diane Sawyer (Yahoo / ABC)

Interesting PSA

A glaad PSA was aired on the Sci-Fi channel after the season premiere of Battlestar Galactica, which (apparently, I don't watch it) had a lesbian relationship. Check the link (which I found via Comic Gays) out to see the PSA (which include Eric Mabus of recent Ugly Betty fame):

Gay Sci-Fi PSA

Modern Millstones

Luke 17 : 1-2
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

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.

Matthew 18: 6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

I believe that many modern leaders of the religious right / Christian evangelical movement would be better off, for their own sake, with millstones around their neck. Although Jesus is referring to children in these versus, I believe it is easy enough to extrapolate that he probably also meant anyone who is a child of God. So many modern Christian leaders have led from their pulpits such an unrivaled persecution of gays and lesbians, driving them from the church and the love of God that they will be judged harshly for their crimes.

What is hard for me to understand is how they rationalize their hatred and seeming hold on the truth. The Bible offers much advice, some of it seemingly contradictory. How so then can these people be so sure that it is their interpretation that is the right one? Of course this kind of irrationality is nothing new; it is as old as time.

However, Biblical literalism is fairly new. The literal interpretation of the Bible is a 20th century invention and obviously creates many problems. As "Steve Falkenberg, Ph. D, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, says, 'I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist.' 'Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)...'" (from Wikipedia entry on "Biblical literalism")

Ultimately, I am arguing for what Professor Ehrmen, Biblical scholar and author, calls for in his radio interview (below), a tolerance for diversity and difference in interpretation. And furthermore, a rational and studied understanding of what the text actually says in opposition to the anti-intellectual approach of literal misunderstanding. Literalism has done nothing but hurt the church and hurt so many others, most recently and particularly gays and lesbians.

For the Bible Tells Me So movie website - an excellent documentary dealing with Christianity and homosexuality (and what the Bible really says about it), including "ex-gay" therapies and following the stories of several families

Diane Rehm interviews Bart Ehrmen, author of Misquoting Jesus (audio)
This interview is an excellent discussion of how the Bible was constructed and even touches on briefly scriptual meaning relative to women in the church and passages on homosexuality.

On the Heresy of Literalism (article)

An evangelical minister discusses the hypocricy of modern evangelicals (Christianity Today, 2005)

Friends of God HBO documentary on the modern evangelical movement

Encyclopedia Britannica entry on modern Christian fundamentalism

Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Revised and Updated: A Positive Christian Response

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

Linkblogging Beyond the Veil

Self-styled "psychics" remain immensely popular in modern times, claiming to impart "wisdom" (said wisdom almost never consists of any useful information). In our more enlightened times you may think belief in such stuff would be on the decline, particularly given the particularly awful representatives that seem to enjoy so much press time these days: John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh and their ilk. Still unsteady times cause people to cling to irrational and comforting belief systems.

However, rather than displaying proven psychic ability, these individuals, Praagh and Edwards particularly, demonstrate no level of connection with the dead beyond that which closely resembles a technique that is centuries old called "cold reading." (Browne uses cold reading also, but also stakes out psychic predictions unlike Praagh and Edwards, although these wild pronouncements rarely have their veracityascertained.)

Cold reading boiled down to the most simple (and not its best) definition is eseentially using some basic psychology, making sweeping generalizations and guesses, and imploying some statistical likelihoods on individuals eager and willing to make and give importance to whatever strands of connection they can make out of these guesses to their deceased loved ones. This gives the appearance that the psychic has knowledge about facts, people, and situations that the psychic would not otherwise know or be able to know unless s/he was actually in touch with the dead.

Why do I care? Well, many of these people are making money off of the hurt and pain of individuals who have lost loved ones; others make wild claims that give false hope or hurt to people (like Browne's latest(and one of her most egregious) incorrect "prediction" of the death of Shawn Hornbeck, who later turned up alive); and they're just liars and I hate liars. If they claimed to just be entertainers with no real ability, I wouldn't care, but they claim true powers and abilities (all the guise of helping people) that they can't prove in controlled situations. They can't even prove them in self-controlled situations, with numerous incorrect guesses that don't rise above anything you or I could do.

I also believe that understanding how our own minds can deceive us and how our desire to want to believe certain things can color the way we take in and process information is vitally important to us in this day and age where our government keeps inching towards the newspeak and controlling eyes of Orwell's distopia and where we cannot rely on our media outlets any longer to bring us objective, well researched, factual and/or relevant news any longer. So understanding how this small sector of our society works informs us about greater and larger issues and how we should, could, and probably are approaching them.

In short, don't believe anything you hear, read, or see without knowing the facts behind it (and beware of whose "facts" they are).

A better definition of "cold reading" (along with other important associated concepts from The Skeptic's Dictionary)

Cold Reading Bingo (the most common techniques used in cold reading)

Professional Magician analysis of John Edward (humourous but serious analysis and some excellent thoughts on skepticism and beliefs in psychics by Ian Rowland)

John Edward reading analysis ("lay person" analysis - a little long)

Video presentation of James Van Praagh cold reading techniques (two parts - watch both)

Stop Sylvia Browne website

Klaas Kid Foundation article on the predatory nature of "psychic" detective work

New Yorker article comparing criminal profiling to cold reading (by Tipping Point author Malcolm Gladwell)

Related: Book review of Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World

Other resource: The James Randi Educational Foundation

Tenacity

I will always associated my grandfather with a bulldog. Like a bulldog, he was at times pugnacious, and always tenacious and unafraid. He held on to almost anything he wanted to and wouldn't let go. He was big and broad like a bulldog and although a very handsome man in his youth, could look somewhat like a bulldog himself.

He owned a bulldog. He, for a part of his career, drove Mack trucks, whose symbol is a bulldog. The image you see is the exact image I tend to associate with my grandfather (whom at one time may have actually owned this exact ashtray). My father (his son) and I attended a university whose mascot is the bulldog and one of my favorite gifts from my grandfather is a set of cross pens with a bulldog emblem on them that were once his.

Two years ago the doctors told my family that my grandfather couldn't last but a few months. True to form, my grandfather outlasted that prediction. Nobody could tell him he couldn't do something.

"Paw Paw," as he was affectionately known by all the grandchildren, grew up with a rough life on a small very rural Mississippi farm. He tenaciously survived the horrors of the World War II Pacific rim fighting. He worked road construction on many of the highways in Mississippi and Southeastern Louisiana. If you travel on the interstate in that region, my grandfather likely helped build it. If you know anything about the hot summers in the South and what road construction entails, you'll know that it's a grueling, sweltering, nasty, difficult job.

Strong-willed to the end, in his last days, he admitted to what we always suspected he thought: "I have never made a mistake," he told his oldest daughter. Pausing a moment then grinning he continued, "And if I did, I would never admit it."

This past Sunday I had the honor of escorting my Paw Paw, Jesse "Josh" Leslie Denton Sr., a veteran of our great nation, to his final resting place. He held on firmly till the end. We love you.

Haggard Reborn

While many gays and lesbians take years to try and successfully supress their true identity through so-called "reparative" therapy , Ted Haggard has successfully accomplished fully and completely in just three months. It's a mircale, virgin born-again heterosexuality. Not that I'm wishing for it to happen, but I'm wagering money that just about as soon as they move out of Colorado, the Haggard marriage will fall apart.

From The Advocate.com: Haggard convinced he's now ''completely heterosexual''

Of course Haggard originally stated when the Mike Jones scandal broke that he had "never had a gay relationship with anybody." So, I'm not sure I trust his judgment.

It's interesting to note that Haggard had no advanced degree; he's now pursuing a Master's in psychology (good choice, Ted. Physician, heal thyself.) I'm used to my clergy having a Master's of Divinity. I'm somewhat snobbish in believing that my ministers should have formal, in-depth training on scripture, theology, and somewhat important matters such as history, Jewish culture, Hebrew, Greek, things like that.

Wikipedia also documents that "Haggard developed ministry efforts towards homosexuals early in his Colorado Springs ministry. He frequented gay bars and invited men to his congregation." Sounds like a certain infamous ex-gay leader.

Also noted is that the editor of a Colorado GLBT newspaper is corroborated by anti-gay leader Lou Sheldon (and friend to Haggard) that Haggard's homosexual activities were pretty well known prior to the Jones incident.

Lastly, and somewhat surprisingly (or perhaps not now), Haggard may have actually supported civil unions for gays. I don't think this undoes his strong anti-gay messages, but it does demonstrate that he is a more complex man than the simple cypher he is or has become.

HRCFields and Mikecoys UPDATE

Since my minor fracas (see my previous post) with HRC on 1/20/07 there has been NO response from the HRC of any kind other than an automatically generated email acknowledging they received my email.

What a surprise.

Why It Matters to Be Out: Michael Anthony Castro

From ESPN (click to read the entire article; thanks, Peter):

You see Michael Anthony Castro, the three-sport star athlete and most popular kid in school, was openly gay. Came out when he was a sophomore.

"He caught a lot of crap over the first six to nine months after coming out," says Phil Takacs, a Banning High counselor. "Sometimes he would come to my office and ask if he could just spend the rest of the day there. He would say that he couldn't take being called 'faggot' any more today and just needed a break. He even thought about quitting sports. But over time, Anthony just got tired of the other kids making him feel bad for who he was.

"One day he was in practice and one of the other wrestlers was giving him a bunch of crap about being gay. Anthony looked at the kid and said 'You have a problem with me; why don't we take this to the mat?' This guy wrestled in the heaviest division, but Anthony pinned him in less than 30 seconds. That guy never said anything else again."

Takacs became Anthony's guardian after Anthony's mother showed him the door shortly after he came out at 16. His father is in prison. Takacs, who is also gay, said initially he was concerned about having Anthony stay with him for fear of disparaging rumors, but he didn't want to see Anthony out in the cold either.

"We're a redneck little town out here," Takacs said. "My partner and I were always scared living here because we always thought our asses would get kicked. But Anthony taught me a lot. He taught us all a lot. He made it OK to be gay."

Psychotic Congresswomen and the Walls that Love Them

Can we introduce a bill to ban Marilyn?

Musgrave gives up on federal marriage ban

A proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide has been shelved in light of the congressional takeover by the Democratic Party, The Pueblo [ Colo. ] Chieftain newspaper reports.

The proposal's sponsors, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, said last week they have no plans to reintroduce their antigay legislation in the new Congress. "At this time I haven't discussed it with anyone," Allard told the newspaper on Thursday. "If we thought there was a decent chance to bring it to the floor for debate, I would, but with the new Congress, I'm not sure we will ever have that opportunity."

A Musgrave spokesman confirmed that the congresswoman would not introduce the legislation this year.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, the proposal would have to win approval by two thirds of each house of Congress and be ratified by three fourths of the states. The proposal, which has been strongly supported by President Bush, has passed in the House a couple of times in recent years but has consistently stalled in the Senate. (The Advocate)

AVENGING UNICORN!!!

Expect to see a lot of this thing...

The HRCfields and the Mikecoys

HRC seems to be more and more devoted to ass kissing. That way lies disaster. We've got to teach them: You don't suck up. There's a great deal of feeling that all they do is pay to go to parties in Washington, to be on the circuit, to be seen, as if that amounts to much.

I never saw an organization exist so long, raise so much money, and do so little.

--Larry Kramer to the Village Voice, December15-21, 2004

Friday night a Human Rights Campaign representative called our house asking to speak with either Peter or me. I have, for quite some time now, not been a fan of the HRC. (I'm sure there's some archived post with me ranting about the HRC.)

To avoid talking to the individual, but to stay polite, I asked if we could call a number back. When I was told no that it was a phone campaign and that they would just call back, I asked if there was a website we could visit.

The person explained that they were running a membership renewal drive. I explained nicely that we would not be renewing our membership. The person asked me if it was because of the elections. You mean the one where not nearly enough Replublicans were unseated and where even more states passed anti-gay legislation? No, the election has nothing to do with it I replied.

Well, "why?"

Because, I explained in somewhat peturbed tones, I believe that the HRC does not spend its money effectively and caters mostly to the wealthy in the gay community and not enough to the average gay American.

Case in point: the ticket price for the 2007 HRC Carolinas Gala (a not uncommon event held by the HRC) is a not uncommon $175, jumping to $195 after February 1st. Or you can purchase a premium location table for ten at the low, low price of $2500. The guest speaker is comedian/actor Leslie Jordan, who I greatly enjoy but whose theatrical productions I can buy for much cheaper or just watch him on Will and Grace for free.

I neglected to add to the phone rep that I agree with Larry Kramer on the fact that the HRC frequently takes credit for things that it really had nothing whatsoever to do with (like the failure of the federal Constitutional amendment not being passed). I also didn't add that, based on my informal observations and conversations with a trusted friend who would know, that our local HRC chapter is exceptionally exclusive and cliquish.

Doing nothing to change my perceptions about the HRC, the solicitor responded in an indignant and snobbish "Sir, that's not true." I explained that, from my point of view, indeed, it was and hung up.

One might reasonably expect that any random individual treat one with respect and courtesy; one might even more reasonably expect that an individual asking for one's money would be exceptionally courteous, not to summarily dismiss my opinion.

I understand I just dumped on his organization. But he asked and one should not ask for what one is not prepared to hear. Might I suggest that a proper response would have been a sincere "I'm sorry you feel that way." Might I suggest that a great follow up after that would have been: "is there anything we can do to change your mind?"

Perhaps even a "F--k you, we don't need your stinking money 'cause we throw fancy dinners you can't afford" would have been preferrable to the intellectual equivalent of the familiar childhood refrain "am not."

I would hope that somebody representing an organization whose mission is to spread acceptance, understanding, equality, and to make the voice of gay Americans heard would actually demonstrate those qualities and listen to a fellow member of the gay community even if we disagree.

I have written to the HRC - I'll let you know if and how they respond.

Promoting Old Stereotypes

Never let it be said that a showtune queen failed to give you a discount on theatre tickets.

Today I received a link that offers a "buy one /get one free" ticket offer for the Charlotte, North Carolina tour production of Edward Scissorhands. Click here to see more scissors for less. (Can we get that discount for a Scissor Sisters concert?)

Edward opened Thursday, January 4th at the Blumenthal Center and runs until January 10th.

Now, never said I never gave you anything.

What Do You Mean Obsessed?

A Brief Look Back at the Year that Was

Just a few highlights and not nearly all of the highlights from 2006 (and in no particular order)

Comics - I love me some comics. 2006 was a particularly good year for them. Thank you Grant Morrison for some of the best stuff out this year. Ed Brubaker, Warren Ellis, Kurt Busiek, Darwyn Cooke, Matt Wagner - youse guys ain't too shabby either. In related news, comic anthologies made a nice splash.

Democrats take both the Senate and House. Wow two whole years to do nothinng, continue to put forth no coherent agenda, and allow Republicans to win the presidency again in 2008. Hillary, I believe you would make a great president, but no, sweetie. Stop now. Pelosi, pull it together, girlfriend.

Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell. Morbid, quirky history made fun. The paperback came out this year, so shut up.

Heroes - it's imperfect and doesn't treat women particularly well and may have retconned a supporting character's sexuality, but it's comics on TV and frankly the only show that's held my attention since Buffy left the air (24 comes close, but some weeks it is far too talky). Ugly Betty, I love you too ( a special kiss on the check to Eric Mabius).

Anti-gay Homo-hypocriscy revealed- Ted Haggard and Mark Foley, to name just two. In related news, Mary Cheney gets preggers - remember all those "Where's Mary?" campaigns? Apparently Mary retreats to sperm banks. Ewww.

Legal documents - signing them - making a commitment. A lot of fun in DC and a little in Orlando.

Leadershape - becoming part of an awesome organization and having the time of my life.

The cult of Gallup - the strengths approach to life, work and play made a tremendous impact on me this year. I think it made one on my students too.

Aikido - I've got a trio of committed guys working with me and it's just wonderful. It's great teaching again with yet another set of great people. Thanks, David, Barry, and Bobby. I love all three of you. I missed the reunion but there's next year.

There is certainly stuff from earlier in the year that I can't recall right now because I forget things in the new year. But there is one thing that ended my year that I'm real happy about!!

Here's a slight clue:

Ye Olde Yule Blog

Christmas Eve linkblogging...

This is modern togetherness - Peter and I sitting on the couch together with our laptops by our lighted Christmas tree, presents finally all wrapped, both of us surfing the web (and me blogging). Tomorrow we go visit my family for a couple of days; I wish his family was closer so we could visit them.

Thanks to the congratulations sent for Peter and me "legalizing" our relationship. Emilie U. - Peter sent me your message - thanks!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. May you may find peace and happiness.

And now, our special "sex before Christmas" edition:

95% of Americans had sex before marriage - a number consistent since the 1950's. Even 88% of women born in the 1940's had pre-marital sex. Do those of you preaching abstinence only education might change your tune a little? It doesn't seem to be working.

Adolescents often disavow having signed a virginity pledge
Virginity pledges delay sex but don't cut down on STD rates.
What virginity pledges do and don't do

73% of military personnel aren't bothered by gays and lesbians, according to Zogby Intl. poll
What else do we need before we end the ridiculous "don't ask don't tell" policy? We fire essential personnel in fighting terrorism (outed Arabic translators) and most of our service members don't care. Can we please quit being stupid now?

New Jersey enacts civil unions - exciting as exciting as separate but equal can be!
"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."

Peter has always said, and I agree, that the government should not be in the business of legislating marriage, because marriage is a religious institution. Seems the NJ governor largely agrees with us; my argument remains however that, until all civil unions of couples are called the same thing, we are being treated as second-class citizens. This remains an issue of American citizens not receiving equal rights. I will insist on marriage until straight couples are given civil unions as well (and of course the repeal of DOMA, the state constitutional bans, and national recognition of such same-sex unions).

And now the person who may be my person of the year - certainly my ally of the year: Carol Gilligan. The noted theorist and professor takes the evil, lying James Dobson to task for misrepresenting her research in Time.

Those Wacky Virginians

Thanks to Anne for both of these pieces...

Check out this rather good op-ed piece in the Washington Post on the few VA Episcopal churches that have withdrawn in protest of the main church's increasingly growing acceptance of same-sex couples.

In stark contrast to that piece, here's another news nugget:

Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and to his partner, TV producer Kevin McGee, wed this weekend at a private civil partnership ceremony in London. ...All guests, along with the couple of honor, attended in costume. While Lucas donned a vibrantly plumed Ali Baba costume, McGee sported an Adam Ant–style Prince Charming getup. Sir Elton John and David Furnish attended (as Captain Hook and Prince Charming, respectively—though not cool, Furnish, showing up the groom!), as did out pop star Will Young (as one of the Ugly Stepsisters), Courtney Love (as the Queen of Hearts), chat-show host Graham Norton, Ab Fab cocreator Dawn French, Doctor Who’s David Tenant, Queer as Folk creator Russell T. Davies, and Little Britain’s cocreator David Walliams.

Here's the photo:

Transfiguration

Tonight, Peter and I, quietly and in the presence of two good friends as witnesses and a very nice lawyer, finalized the legal documents that will allow us to take care of each other should the need arise. We celebrated with a fun dinner afterwards.

No fanfare, no songs (well Christmas songs on the radio), no confetti, no hoopla. This was us putting the ultimate trust in each other. Our lives are completely open books to each other in every sense now. Our financial resources and decisions about our health and the handling of our departure is in each other's hands.

Forced to draw up documents that most people never think about because society has deemed that we don't deserve the right to love and protect each other, I'm at a loss to feel resentment or anger right now. All I can think about is the miracle of two people finding each other and knowing that that other person is the absolutely perfect person to make the most important decisions of their life for them. Not many people, gay or straight, or that fortunate. Forced to truly examine our relationship in ways that many straight couples never do, we are all the stronger and certain for it.

It's really something quite amazing if you stop to think about it. Love and trust expressed through a signature. Legal documents that signify something far greater than the words on them.

This is the secular made sacred and spiritual. The mundane made holy.

A Few Smaller Items

Neil, I believe, commented on my "Straight Talk" post about bisexuality but I chose not to post it because of the language he used in it. I try to keep this a PG-13 site, on rare occassion R, but Neil went into some X-rated language. Still, he made a point worth addressing, which is that some people are true bisexuals. Bisexuality is not well understood still and even less accepted by either the gay or straight community. I do think there are some true bisexuals - people equally attracted to both sexes, but I think this is exceptionally rare. I still think that most people who label themselves bisexual, particularly men are rejecting the gay label. If we understand sexuality as a continuum, them likely most people will favor one side of the other. I don't want to diminish the experience of true bisexuals; my personal experience is that it is often used as a transitionary label or a final grasping at non-homosexuality.

During our Disney vacation, I fainted during a tour (which unfortunately Peter was greatly anticipating). It was the first time I've ever fainted in my life and I think it was caused by a combination of factors, the biggest of which was unthinkingly having wine for dinner while still on some powerful medication from a previous illness. I was attended to by the head of guest relations, a very cute paramedic, and an affable but goofy security guard. (Ok, not literally Goofy.) The security guard, using what must be a standard joke for him, asked me if I had seen Minnie Mouse walking by since she often has that effect on fellows. The paramedic glanced over to the guest relations head (both of whom I believe were family) and then told the security guard, "I think you are missing some important clues." I have continued to laugh my butt off on that one.

Various stations have been running The Polar Express continuously these past few weeks and I have caught it at various stages. The animation is really, really creepy. It could have been a very good movie, but unfortunately it isn't, which is a shame since the book it's based on is beautiful. My main problem, storywise, is that the young protagonist has a problem believing in Santa. This issue is only resolved after he's been transported on a magic train to the North Pole, where he is surrounded by elves, flying reindeer, and impossible devices. There are other story problems, but this is a deal-breaker for me. It's not inspiring to see someone have faith in something once they've all but seen it. The young man doesn't see Santa until he says he believes, but given the incredible surroundings, it's not such a leap of faith. I would prefer he came to a decision point well before then - faith is believing in what you can't prove or see.

I hope to be able to maintain more regular posts, but only time will tell. Certainly the winter holiday will afford me some time, but when I return to work in January will be the true test.

The Bully Pulpit

Yes, over three months have passed since my last entry. Life has been...difficult...to say the least. I won't go into details here, or at least for now, but let me say that a week long vacation/business trip (v/k for me; work for Peter) perfectly symbolized our life by having half of it wiped out. We lost two days because of a very odd episode involving me fainting (more on that in a later post) and three days because Peter was bitten/stung by some unknown insect that luckily found me not as tasty. Poor Peter has continued to struggle with the fallout from the bite for ten days now and it's still not over for him yet. A symbolic, if not restful, vacation.

What has prompted me to post now, however, falls perfectly in line with my previous post. (Hi, anyone out there still??)

Not ere a month since the reverend Ted Haggard's disclosure of "sexual immorality," another evangelical has come out of the closet, also in Colorado, a bastion of the religious right. The Denver Post reported on December 11th that the Rev. Paul Barnes, the minister of a 2100 member church, has resigned because he continues to struggle with homosexualilty. Barnes is a 54 year old man, married with two daughters in their twenties. Barnes said in a videotaped segment that he had struggled with being gay since the age of three.

Barnes apparently still rejects the idea that people are born this way and is searching for childhood influences on how he became gay. I'm not sure what could possibly influence someone at the age of three to become gay; I don't remember anything really before I was in kindergarten, but clearly Barnes isn't ready to accept that perhaps God made him that way. Tragically he recounts one childhood incident where his father talked about what he would do if a "fag" approached him. Barnes recounts how this impacted him; how he wondered what his father would think of him.

It's unfortunate that Barnes cannot see that it wasn't childhood circumstances that made him gay, but instead childhood circumstances that caused him to hate himself. Although Ted Haggard did not recount a similar conversation in his letter to his church, he did mention that "there's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all my adult life." Somebody told him that his life was repulsive and I honestly don't think it was God.

Initially, I was very angry with Haggard and happy to see another anti-gay hypocrite brought down. That was not the right response. Soulforce correctly models the proper Christian attitude of forgiveness and compassion. And, honestly, when I read Haggard's letter, my anger melted away. His letter is filled with sadness; it's easy to see how much he hates himself and how much he thinks he is unworthy of respect and love. I suspect Barnes feels the same way. That any human feels that way is intensely sad. I'm afraid that being under the control of the hate spewing and fact-distorting supervision of James Dobson will not help Haggard feel differently about himself any time soon. I hope he can come to realize that his life is not over and that he, as a gay human being, is worthy of God's love and acceptance.

Societal and religious discrimination and homophobia are the real culprits here. The failure of the average church-goer to understand what God's Word really says about gay people and the purposeful use of distorted facts and scripture for personal and political gain by religious and political leaders are the factors that cause people to have less meaningful, less fulfilled lives. They promote a culture that damages and harms people, children, youth, and adults alike.

Evangelical culture actually encourages people to act very un-Christian. Evangelicals become obsessed with rules and regulations; they are the modern pharisees and sadducees that Jesus reprimanded time and time again. They are concerned with who is and isn't going to Heaven through obeying The Rules rather than focusing on service, love, sacrifice, and compassion. These were the values of Christ, whom I cannot believe would endorse the repeated aggressive attempts of modern Evangelicals to enact legislation that denies gays and lesbians even basic civil protections.

Evangelical culture promotes followers who will send you e-mail, such as I recently received, telling you that you are "full of confusion" and despite comparing you to pedophiles and practioners of bestiality insist that they are still "not writing to you to make you feel condemned or unloved or even unaccepted." My e-mailer seems far more confused than I am. I suspect that my admirer finds me confused becaause I readily express that there are mysteries of faith that I don't and can't understand. That I unashamedly admit that I find myself conflicted sometimes in matters of faith. Evangelicals like certainty: right and wrong clearly defined. There is no place for honest reactions, doubt, or thinking that maybe our finite minds cannot fully understand the infinite mind of God. Like many Evangelicals, my writer readily pronounced me as not being a Christian, as if Jesus had called her up to let give her the inside scoop. She pretends to know my heart and mind; something I thought only God could do. But passing judgment is a favorite past-time of Evangelicals, who prefer to gloss over verses such as "judge not lest ye also be judged" but love verses that seem to suit their purposes.

Ah, but I digress from my original purpose, which is to highlight how the misuse of scripture, religion, and homophobia have created a pressure cooker that is starting to crack. It's been leaking for almost a decade now, but I think this one is finally getting ready to blow. I wish it didn't take people having to undergo such traumatic events. I hope that a brighter dawn emerges from the storm we are all in.

Straight Talk

Peter found this article on WebMD. It's fascinating, but not too surprising to me. I believe one of the side-effects of the gay civil rights movement may have been to make married, straight-identified men (or straight men in an opposite-sex "serious" relationship) more bold or at least less scared of acting on their same-sex sexual interests.

Undoubtably, some of our comfort as a society talking about gay issues has helped bring this issue to light, but I find it curious that many more men seem willing to either label themselves as "bi", probably because to be "gay" is far too effeminate and faggy. "Bi" seems to allow these type of men a self-concept of masculinity that somehow seems elusive to them as gay men. I also wondeer if it hasn't caused some men who like to have sex with men to hold even harder onto that mythical American dream of a wife, kids, two cars in the garage, and a white picket fence while at the same time embolding them to act on their sexual desires.

Societally, as we've become more open and accepting of homosexuality, we've seen a strong counter-current of people desparately clinging onto antiquated ideas of what it means to be a man in American society. Perhaps feeling that these outdates concepts of masculinity are on the verge of becoming extinct (sadly, I think, they're nowhere near that - many concepts of masculinity have prevailed since time began), they cling even harder to that self-identity.


Many Straight Men Have Gay Sex
Nearly 10% of Self-Proclaimed 'Straight' Men Only Have Sex With Men
By Daniel DeNoonWebMD Medical News
Reviewed By Louise Chang, MDon Monday, September 18, 2006

Sept. 18, 2006 -- Nearly one in 10 men who say they're straight have sex only with other men, a New York City survey finds.

And 70% of those straight-identified men having sex with men are married.

In fact, 10% of all married men in this survey report same-sex behavior during the past year.
This means safe-sex messages aimed at straight and gay men are likely missing this important subgroup, suggest Preeti Pathela, DrPH, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and colleagues.

"To reduce the burden of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infection among men who have sex with men, it is of utmost importance for [health care] providers to take a sexual history that ascertains the sex of a partner," Pathela and colleagues report. "Asking about a patient's sexual identity will not adequately assess his risk."

Straight Men Who Have Sex With Men
In 2003, Pathela's team performed telephone interviews with nearly 4,200 New York City men. They conducted the interviews in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian; a translation service helped with interviews in Greek, Korean, Yiddish, Polish, and Haitian Creole.
In nearly every study of sexual behavior, the percentage of men who report sex with men is higher than the percentage of men who report being gay.

So Pathela and colleagues first asked the men if they were bisexual, gay, or straight. Then they asked about specific sexual behaviors.

Some of the findings:
Straight-identified men who have sex with men report fewer sex partners than gay men.

Straight-identified men who have sex with men report fewer STDs in the past year than gay men.

Straight-identified men who have sex with men are less likely than gay men to report using a condom during their last sexual encounter.

Straight-identified men who have sex with men are more likely to be foreign born than gay men.

Also, a man who says he is straight but is having sex with other men is more likely to be married than a straight man who has sex with women, according to the survey. Only 54% of the men who say they're straight and have sex with women are married, compared with the 70% marriage rate among the men who say they're straight but have sex with men.

Pathela and colleagues note that because they report fewer STDs and fewer sex partners than gay men, straight-identified men who have sex with men may think they are at lower risk of HIV and STDs. This isn't necessarily so.

The men with whom these straight-identified men have sex may themselves have multiple sex partners and elevated STD and HIV risk. The low rate of condom use makes the straight-identified men vulnerable.

"Prevention messages should focus on the activities that pose risk -- for example, unprotected receptive anal sex -- and should not be framed to appeal solely to gay-identified men," Pathela and colleagues suggest.

The findings appear in the Sept. 19 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
SOURCES: Pathela, P. Annals of Internal Medicine, Sept. 19, 2006; vol 145: pp 416-425.

Shiver Me Justin Timberlake

I about missed "Talk Like a Pirate Day". What's your pirate name, me harties?

My pirate name is:

Mad Dog Rackham

Part crazy, part mangy, all rabid, you're the pirate all the others fear might just snap soon. You have the good fortune of having a good name, since Rackham (pronounced RACKem, not rack-ham) is one of the coolest sounding surnames for a pirate. Arr!

Courtesy of Pirate Quiz.com - where else? Arrrr

Gay (News) Parade

Or lazy linkblogging...

Openly-gay Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit re-elected (and possible viable candidate for head of state)

Gay couple's affection banned on oversea American Airline flight

Thanks to Dorian for pointing out those two items.

More companies gay-friendly, according to annual HRC study. Exxon is again one of the companies that scored a complete zero on the index. Buy your gas ANYWHERE else, people.

Charles Barkley, interested in running for governor of Alabama, down with gay marriage

Advocate cover features yet another straight (B-list at best) celebrity
That's not really news, though, now is it?

And in the news item voted "Most Likely to Raise Michael's blood pressure the Most"...

McGreevey Opposed Same-Sex Marriage To Hide Own Sexuality
From the article...

"'I did not want to be identified as being gay, and it was the safe place to be,' McGreevey said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press. 'I wanted to embrace the antagonist. I wanted to be against it. That's the absurdity.'"

"Though he angered the gay and lesbian community in 2002 with his opposition to a lawsuit giving legal protection to same-sex marriages, the state's top gay rights organization and the lead attorney for the gay couples who sued for the right to marry say they are not upset by McGreevey's admission.

"'He did use his office as governor as a bully pulpit to speak out against gay marriage. And we were mad as hell,' said Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality.

"'But he did a 180. When someone does that, how do you turn around and say you won't accept their apology,' Goldstein said."

You say, "apology NOT accepted." How about that? I can't stand the hero-ization of McGreevey, a man who does not in any way shape or form deserve it. And to simply dismiss his active participation in hindering civil rights for people as excusable because now he "did a 180." (In what way? By coming out? By coming out when he was about to be exposed, not because of some high inner moral edict or belief?) Let's not pretend that just becomes somebody is an out homosexual that he or she is beyond reproach. Let's try to find some real role models and spokespeople.

Failing to Advocate

The Advocate is striking out, and not in bold new directions. No, the magazine is striking out in the recreational sense. I'm tired of it; I quit subscribing to it a few years ago because I felt like it had lost touch with its mission and its audience. (Hopefully I'm right about the latter half, although I fear I'm wrong and that The Advocate actually is properly addressing its audience.)

In the previous issue, the editor came out strongly against criminal penalties for people who have HIV, know they have HIV and fail to disclose this to sexual partners. I find this wholly unresponsible and as an example of political correctness gone awry. I don't blame people who are HIV positive for their condition, and I recognize the difficulties that such a law could pose for people living with HIV, both knowingly and unknowingly. However, failure to disclose HIV status to a sexual partner is, without question, morally wrong. It's a sin of the greatest magnitude, just slightly under lying about your HIV status.

I agree that some people may advocate for such laws out of ignorance, irrational fear, or even hate. That doesn't make it an unreasonable law intrinsically, however. I don't advocate for doctors or other medical personnel having to disclose their HIV status; that's an entirely different matter. But somebody just trying to get laid who purposefully hides his/her status in order to have sex (or worse to knowingly try to transmit) should be punished. It's irresponsible and selfish. This doesn't absolve people from asking - dammit, there's a level of responsibility on both sides, but one party's failure to ask is not sufficient reason to subject that person to a debilitating, expensive, even deadly disease.

Now, once that status has been disclosed, it's no longer that person's responsibility to protect you. If you, at that point, chose to engage in high-risk behavior, then that's your choice. You had full information and chose to participate. This is one potential problem with such a law: people who claim they weren't informed but actually were. I think the optimal solution is to have that disclosure in writing. Being able to prove that on the date you encountered the person, they had awareness of your status is crucial to protect yourself. This, I think, is easy enough with an e-mail or even a signed statement. Yes, I know, it takes all of the romance or lust or perversion out of the encounter, whatever you're asking for, but some people into risky or adventurous sex advocate using contracts just so that everybody is clear on the expectations. Contracts aren't sexy, but they are probably worth it.

If you want to argue against this point, that's understandable and I'm willing to listen to counter arguments, but The Advocate seems to make its stance with no thoughtfullness at all. It comes off as what they believe is the popular opinion, or at least the "cool" opinion, so that's the one it goes with.

The most recent issue, you know, the one with the Gwen Stephanie cover, has an editorial that's nearly as frustrating. (No, Gwen's not gay, by the way.) Although it deals with a much less weighty topic, The Advocate's editor decided to go after Born Different, the campaign with the cute dog who "moos." The Advocate, the magazine with the numerous celebrities on its covers (many who aren't gay, but sure like us queers a lot) complains that too much money was spent on what it characterizes as an ineffectual campaign, exclaiming that the money could have been spent on telling the story of real individuals. The Advocate, the one with the sexy and provacative cover just three issues ago (their summer sex issue), berates the campaign for being too easily discredited by Focus on the Family and its ilk ("dogs aren't born mooing and people aren't born gay").

I have no idea how impactful, if at all, the Born Different campaign has been. I'm a huge fan of exposing people to gay and lesbian families that they can relate to (although I'm also a huge proponent of making sure that we don't lose the radicalness of queer identity). I also firmly believe that the good word (that us queers aren't out to steal your kids and husbands) needs to be delivered in a variety of ways. Different people respond to different messages. I can tell you one thing over and over and you may never understand it until somebody else tells you the exact same thing, except in a different way that you respond to. So, without any hard facts to prove that the BD campaign hasn't been useful, this magazine that once was the premiere publication of our community but now is obsessed with interviewing straight celebrities, has the audacity to attack an organization actually promoting not just civic acceptance, but societal acceptance. This campaign, trying to change peoples' hearts and attitudes, not just their vote, is belittled by a magazine that has lost its way and does almost nothing to truly advocate for our community any longer. The Advocate needs to change its name to The Hypocrite.

If I didn't already get the magazine for free, I'd cancel my subscription.

In Poor Taste (and Not Just Mine)

Brisbane, Australia (AP) -- Representatives of the international Stingray community today called the attack against famed entertainer Steve "The Crocodile Hunter" Irwin "barbaric." Leaders of Stingray communities across the world condemmed the attack as the action of a militant and fundamentalist sect of Stingrays. These leaders, along with other global leaders, urged that individuals not lash out at Stingrays in their communities.

Even President George W. Bush, noted for defaming gay and lesbians for political gain and power said, "We should not rush to stereotype these typically peaceful people. Stingrays are postivit contributors to society; they are a peaceful people and should not be retaliated against unless you are absolutely sure they are a terrorist." National guardsmen were deployed to several Stingray community centers to ward off possible violence.

Admittably, this is at best in borderline taste, but really it's aimed at the news media who has been treating this unfortunate man's death as if he were a political dignitary. Steve Irwin's death is tragic, but does not rise to the level of coverage given to it when far more pressing matters fail to gain the attention they deserve. The news media continually fails to correctly and successfully prioritize news coverage. That said, sincere condolences to his family and loved ones.

It's half tempting to go into an extended parody of what the stingray ate during its arraignment, given the news media's fascination with the meals of the Jon Benet Ramsey Non-Killer.

When Is Progress Not Progress?

This past Monday, Wal Mart has entered into a partnership with the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Leaving the Chamber to make the announcement (no press release came from the company), representatives of the megacorp nonetheless expressed that "[Wal Mart] is making a very sincere effort to reach out to people who are a significant part of our customer base."

I came across this while listeing (as all highly-educated, hyper astute individuals do of course) to NPR today and Cox News (yes, I'm tempted to be crass here) offers a write-up that includes most of what I heard on the radio (found courtesy of Wal Mart Watch). The article details the totally not-unexpected resistance from right-wing "family" groups and also the not-surprising negative reaction from liberal groups opposed to Wal Mart's decidely non-worker friendly policies, regardless of sexual orientation.

While mention is made of Wal Mart's interest in expanding into urban areas, home to greater populations of the gay-folk, what it doesn't expound upon (that NPR did) is that Wal Mart is also seeking not just to increase its customer base, but specifically looking for those with more disposable income. (I always hear that us queers have tons of disposable income. When do I get mine?) Wal Mart wants people to spend more during each trip and the way to do that is to cultuvate a more, shall we say, income-available crowd. Wal Mart has to up it's snob appeal.

It is, of course, somewhat of a conundrum. On one hand, any positive step for greater acceptance of gay people in society is a good thing. On the other hand, it's merely a calculated business move to generate more income, not a gesture motivated out of some inherent ethical perspective or foundation. It's both affirmation and cynical manipulation in the same embrace.

Also, shouldn't we as a community be concerned for the more encompassing ills that Wal Mart perpetuates as a company? It is decidedly unfriendly in its policies for its workers and its business practices to drive down prices from its suppliers frequently have disasterous trickle-down effects for those suppliers and/or their employees. Americans think Wal Mart is a good deal (well, some do, others of us find it a disgusting and unethical place to shop at and others are forced out of necessity to shop there) but in the long run, many practices are probably hurting the people who need those low prices the most.

Right wing pundits in the article claim that Wal Mart's core shopping group will stop shopping at the stores because of this seemingly gay-friendly move. Not likely. We've seen the disasterous effects that the Southern Baptist boycotts have had on the finances of the Disney Corporation. Disney is ready to sell their theme parks to Jerry Faldwell just to get out of debt. And Disney is entertainment. Wal Mart provides food and other supplies that are vital to people living or having any quality of life.

Americans are not civic minded and self-sacrificing enough over any issue above their own pocketbook. If Wal Mart prices stay low, they won't lose any revenue. Much of the country could probably care less to begin with, as attitudes towards gay rights continue to become more positive. In the end, this is a no-lose motion on Wal Mart's part. The company can only gain by giving the perception that it's a welcoming affirming place, especially for rich queens and sapphic home makers (or renovators).

In other non-progressive news, Wayne Besen reports on a New York Baptist church firing a Sunday School teacher because she's a woman (and an old one at that). The decision was based in the literal interpretation of the Epistle of Timothy: ""I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.""

This was New York state, might I add. Shut up about the red state crap now.

And on a happier note, I was amused by the story on All Things Considered today of a Nova Scotia lobster seller who had to innovate on their shipping of lobsters. No longer able to pack the lobsters in ice or cold gel packs, the company became truly clever and now packs the lobsters in...frozen vegetables. Not only do they work as well as ice, but now the company advertises a free vegetable side! That, my friends, is using the ole noggin.

A Hijacking That's Truly a Concern

Sent to me from my friend Anne (oooh, Anne, you got a blog mention - don't you feel blogworthy?)

Hijacking fears and values
By Bishop Paul V. Marshall
August 2006

This is Bishop Paul Marshall’s August column for secular newspapers, usually different from his column in Diocesan Life. The column is sent to newspapers throughout our 14 counties. It is published by The Morning Call, Allentown, on the first (occasionally, the second) Saturday of every month. The combined circulation of papers that publish the column regularly is about 400,000. More than 100 columns have been published over the past nine years.

When Samuel Johnson observed in 1775 that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” he was disapproving of scoundrels, not patriotism.

What scoundrels did, and do, is hijack people’s values in order to amass power and wealth for themselves. It is not just patriotism that is used this way, but anything that evokes people’s fear of losing what is sacred to them. Family and moral values are recent examples of values being hijacked for ignoble purposes.

When the two can’t be told apart, religion is as bad as politics. No religion on earth fails to have blood on its hands – the arguments tend to boil down to whose religion has more.

No fictional example of the moral profiteer is more memorable than Professor Harold Hill of The Music Man, who sells musical instruments and band uniforms by harnessing people’s fear that their youth may be corrupted by the presence of a pool table.

No real-life example is more horrific than what happened in Europe when an evil man convinced Germans that they were victims of a conspiracy in the 1930s.

What will history say of our own time?

Eric Fromm, who gave much of his career to helping people live and love authentically, observed: “There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.”
History provides an example. The Crusades, no matter what the motivation of their initiators, became the opportunity for breath-taking pillage and murder.

Can anyone say that the love of God motivated those crimes? Of course not, but those who perpetrated them said so. Some of them apparently believed it.

Fromm and Johnson suggest a test for weighing our responses to what we see and hear. If someone consistently raises our fears and repeatedly harks on what is wrong in an effort to get our votes or our money, we may be in the presence of a scoundrel.

If someone reduces patriotism or morality to one issue or a very small cluster of issues, a scoundrel may be at work.

If we notice that our outrage can be linked to our own sense of personal security or to our pocketbooks, we may be listening to a scoundrel.

That’s the easy part – if the alarms just described go off, don’t vote for the scoundrels and don’t give them money. The more challenging part is regulation of whatever, inside our own souls, makes us vulnerable to the scoundrel’s pitch.

Fromm says that the envy and hate on which the scoundrel relies are already there. The scoundrel merely provides the channel through which they can flow.

It is worth asking ourselves, when we hear a stirring denunciation of someone else, what in us makes us interested in hearing such things?

An answer comes in part from the fact that we tend to blame in others what we fear in ourselves. This may explain why so many high-profile crusaders turn out to have secretly sordid lives.

Those who are willing to look into the chaos of their own souls tend to give others a break. People who know their lives to be in order are seldom obsessed with apparent disorder in the lives of others.

The highest use of religion is not to create the illusion of order and a place from which to obsess about the failings of those around us. The highest use of religion is to make us enough at peace with our own dark places that there is no joy in degrading others. Such a state of things would put a lot of scoundrels out of work, but it would be pleasant.

[The Rt. Rev. Paul V. Marshall is bishop of the Diocese of Bethlehem, 14 counties of eastern and northeastern Pennsylvania. Additional columns and sermons by Bishop Marshall are available atwww.diobeth.org.]

The Crazy Season

This is the time of year that gets the busiest for me; the days leading up to the opening of the buildings and moreso the start of the academic year. Although the halls opening has much less impact on my job than getting ready for class does and the return of the faculty causes me more work than the return of the RAs, this time nonetheless is exceptionally busy for me. This year should prove to be exceptionally moreso; it will be a matter of picking out my priorities and focusing on them and ignoring that which doesn't get done simply because there weren't enough hours in a day.

Of course, one of those priorities must be my relationship with Peter, whose job just never seems to get done. We are looking forward to some time together later this Fall, but our anniversary time was severely cut into this year by the demands of both our jobs. We got in some QT, but it just wasn't enough, plus we're both exhausted right now.

That exhaustion does worry me for Peter's health. I'm convinced it played a major part in his profound illness back in March. And our now-former doctor failed to adequately explore what exactly caused it all, in my opinion. We finally found a really good doctor today, one who understands the issues of two gay men and one who, more importantly, seemed interested and caring in his approach. He's far away from us (a good 30 minutes using the interstate) but I think he'll be worth it. This has given me no small piece of mind; do not underestimate the importance of a good doc.

The frustration with the past-doc definitely raised the issue as to why exactly she failed to provide an adequate level of care. Although I never got an anti-gay vibe from her, the question of course popped into both of our heads. It's a shame, really, to have to even consider the possibility. Being white men, it's easy for us to forget the world of priviledge we belong to and how we get by most days without thinking about if we got shafted because of who we are. It is the consequence of being completely out (and I wouldn't have it any other way) that we do sometimes run into the wall of subordinate membership. We may not have been discriminated against, but maybe we did and I hate even thinking about it. I've had this conversation several times with black friends: they don't want to think that they second-hand treatment (or worse) simply because of their race; they don't want to play the race card, yet it's hard not to wonder. And when that pattern becomes repeated, then obviously something is going on here.

My experience is that reasonable people seek reasonable answers. Even when the reasonable answer is, yes, we live in a society that oppresses certain groups daily, usually in the most subtle, unnoticed, or underhanded ways, most reasonable people belonging to a subordinate group look for another reason. Most people want to believe the best of their fellow person, yet the spectre of reality, the reality of institutionalized -isms is lurking right over their shoulder. It whispers about the shadow side of human behavior. And that whisper is impossible to ignore. Some people hear this whisper daily, others, like myself, less frequently. I want to be the reasonable person; I hope I am right in being so.

Nonetheless, being out is an important decision, especially being out to your doctor. Here's a good article about making that decision and how to find the right doctor. GLMA (the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) is an invaluable resource for our community. We found our new doctor, whom we are estatic with, through this resource.

We now return you to our regular programming...

Peter's and my relationship has never been more important to us than it is right now; never more alive or central. It's become something that's far deeper than I ever anticipated. I always thought the heady rush that accompanies that initial puppy love stage and stays with you for months even was where it was at. I mourned the loss of that feeling. But what I feel now is far more compelling, important, and ingrained to my being. It's impossible to imagine him not in my life, not with me. It's not just a desire to not be lonely - it's about him. No other substitute is possible, even conceivable. It doesn't mean we're the perfect couple. Certainly we still fuss and fight, but the connection, which at times felt breakable in the past, isn't part of the equation any more.

In regards to other priorities, this blog will take a bit of a back seat unless something really rattles my cage or I suddenly find less work to do (not likely)!

Positively Interesting

Right now I'm really immersed in the Gallup Organization's research on talent and excellence. They have combined this research with an emerging field called positive psychology, which instead of studying what is wrong with people, studies what is right with people.

It sounds all a bit Pollyanna-ish and Norman Vincent Peale-ish, but it tries really hard to avoid that and is rooted not just in theory, but actual studies of people who are the best (and the average) of what they do. Gallup is really interested in what distinguishes your average joe versus the best of the best.

Gallup has found that what makes excellence (at least in the workplace) is a strong match between a person's job and their talents. A talent, for Gallup, is any recurring thought, feeling, or behavior that can be constructively applied.

Gallup distinguishes talent from skill, which are those things that can be taught (like how to fill out a database or spreadsheet) and knowledge, which are those things you know from experience or being taught/reading. Talent, on the other hand, cannot be taught. They can be sharpened into strengths, but because they are innate to who you are, they can't be changed. For instance, if you aren't empathic (the ability to feel what others are feeling - the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), then no amount of training or practice will turn you into a strong empath. You can learn some skills that will improve how empathic you are, but likely you will always have to think very purposefully about those things (what your posture is, what nonverbals to look for, make sure to listen to voice rate, pitch, tone, etc.) and you may even funtion at a decent level of empathy, but it will never come naturally and spontaneously to you. It will never be as fulfilling to you as other things you are more talented at doing.

And, you can "not do it." Your talents are things that you can't not do.

All of this setup to say, therefore, I loved the following quote that was the signature in an email I received from a staff member of Leadershape:

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit."
--Aristotle

Apparently this stuff has been around for a lot longer than we realized!

A Necessary Set Back?

I've surprised myself by taking the New York Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage pretty hard. I honestly hadn't thought much about it, considering it well out of my realm of being able to do anything about it. And although I wasn't certain about the chances of success there, I certainly thought that same-sex marriage had a better chance of being upheld as being legal and in accordance with New York State constitution than not. But, what I think hurts the most is the language and rationale behind the judges which suggests that they cowed to political or public pressure.

The word "sexual preference" over "orientation" was used by at least one judge and a portion of the ruling seems to suggest that gay marriage disrupts traditional heterosexual marriage and that is needed to stabilize the currently shaky state of affairs in many straight relationships. I swear I'm not making this up! According to the New York Times:

In particular, they noted one section suggesting heterosexual couples need marriage to be preserved as a way to shore up their faulty relationships and protect their children who might suffer in broken-home situations.

"It's a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak argument: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples," Mr. [David Buckel, head counsel for Lambda Legal] said.

To quote Jon Stewart, "muwa-huh?" I've never understood how giving same-sex couples legal protections impedes on traditional marriage. The idea of preserving something that won't be going anywhere is highly illogical to me.

I'm also greatly pained thinking about the gloating that several right-wing groups are going to be doing for a while now. They'll certainly take the opportunity to say that this is a message/signal/sign that God/America/People with SUV's isn't going to stand for gay marriage. This decision has already been called the Gettysberg of gay marriage. I'm just going to have to not watch TV for a while because I just don't want to hear it.

If anything, I think the clear message here is that we must work on changing laws by working through legislators and winning over individuals and communities (which, by and large, is done individually). It's more difficult, it's a much harder journey, and it requires more sacrifice. It requires gay and lesbian people to be more out and open and expressive about our lives. We must speak up and out to our family and friends about this issue. It's not easy; I find it very difficult to do with my own parents. But trying to win through the courts is not working by and large. Yes, we've had some victories, and yes, we did it through the legislative process in California and got sent to the courts by a coward and a snake. But people are resenting the victories in the court and it's giving ammunition to our opponents.

Although it's easy to get depressed and tired from set backs like this, I hope it leads the advocacy groups to re-think their strategies and re-prioritize to make them even more impactful and effective. For my fellow gay American, I hope it makes us more willing to share our lives with the people around and to express how deserving we are of the legal protections our straight friends and co-workers share.