It’s not a complicated answer. Al Qaida’s attack on the U.S. was motivated by religious fundamentalism. So the lesson learned should be to oppose and quell religious fundamentalism. But we did the opposite. We turned to our own churches and gave them even more power over society than they already had. We propagated Islamophobia, drawing sharper divides between faiths than those that had inspired the attacks to begin with. We launched two holy wars, fighting fire with fire as we’ve attempted to assert our “Judeo-Christianity” world-power authority over those who don’t fit the mold. And we did it all because we’re insecure, because we’re a nation who relies on faith—God shed his grace on thee—to find meaning and value in the potential we have to be great.

It’s ten years later, and look where we are. Islamophobia is a multi-billion dollar industry. War persists without end, though the Arab Spring brings hope that change will come not at the hands of an outside force but from within those nations who will no longer suffer tyrants. And on our home soil, we have creeping Dominionism, the effort to impose Christian dominion over the “seven mountains” of society: government, education, media, arts & entertainment, religion, family, and most importantly, business. As Christian leaders motivate fear of Islam through so-called “creeping Sharia”—the  absurd idea that Muslims have already started taking over our communities and instituting strict Sharia Law—they are using this fear to impose their own control over society. And while some like Pat Robertson and Matt Barber now play coy as if they’ve never heard of Dominionism, let alone the fact they contribute to it on a daily basis, Dominionism is more visible and present in mainstream America than ever before and well connected to the entire religious right. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s prayer rally this Summer (which featured a wide array of religious right leaders making cameos), was predominated by some of the top names in Dominionism. Both he and Rep. Michele Bachmann have close ties to the movement and our frontrunner Republican presidential candidates.

The answer to Muslim fundamentalism is not Christian fundamentalism. Both are warring factions, fighting for power and control over society. The creeds that inform them do little to distinguish them. Both need to be opposed.

The attacks on 9/11/2001 taught us how destructive religious fundamentalism can be to mind and heart. Until we learn to resist fundamentalism’s lust for hegemony, we will continue to fall victim to the very primitive notions that caused 9/11. The time is over for sadness, confusion, insecurity, and fear. It’s time for courage of conviction, organized inclusion, trust in one another, and confidence in the power of diversity. We must avail ourselves of a society in which all people can live freely without imposition of one faith group or another. The goal should be harmony, not “safety.”

It’s been a while since I’ve taken time out to critique the privilege religion has over society, but I hope that today, whoever’s out there reading this thinks of nothing else. Where would we be today if ten years ago, we realized that the scariest threat to our world is shallow, insecure thinking and that the answer is to reach out to one another rather than cloistering ourselves off and forcing everybody else out?

Where would we be if we treated people the way we want people to be treated rather than just the way we think our particular version of God wants us to be treated?

Until we learn that lesson, we are no safer than we were ten years ago today.

Me at age 14 with friend, Esther. (2000)

I’ve always been anal. I’ve always liked there to be a time and place for everything, and I can get frustrated when things don’t fit together, like a song that has no chorus. There was a time in my life when a drastic shift in theme, character, or setting between seasons was enough for me to stop watching a beloved television show. And there used to be a time when I assumed the theme, characters, and setting of my life would be exactly as I had planned them out. I don’t really buy these preferences anymore, and I feel like I’m all the wiser for it.

Today I mark the big 26. What is that, late-mid 20′s? I insist it’s still mid-20′s. It’s not that I have any problem with getting old—it’s just that life feels so new this year that I prefer the “younger” framing. Twenty-six isn’t really “big” or “the”-worthy either, but this birthday feels significant, because it’s my first in a new era of my existence.

Last year at 25 should have been significant. A perfect square, a quarter of a century. But who cares about numbers?I was unemployed and living in complete uncertainty for what my future held. Boy was I surprised at just what 25 would bring with it.

Now I have a job! I’m living on my own! And I’m part of a big city for the first time in my life. And that job? Totally not what I thought it would be. I wrote back in March that this new life course made little sense to me when compared to my previous life plan, and I’m still not sure it does. But it’s the path I’m on now… and it’s just peachy.

So here’s a little thought on the passage of time. Whatever comes next doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with what came before. As individuals, we are the sum total of our experiences. The world presents us with a whole lot of dots and our lives are what connect them. When we die—or at any point along the way—we can look back and measure our lives not just by the quantity of our accomplishments, but by the tapestry we wove, the picture we unknowingly drew.

It’s pretty cheesy and platitudinous, I know. But that’s just where I am with things. When you let go of all those certainties and expectations society provides, life is a whole lot more exciting and surprising.

So cheers to living life as a rhapsody and dropping glitter on all those strophic codgers.

Zack and Peterson welcome Peter Leeson onto the show this week—do note the distinction between Peterson and Peter LEEson. Our first trans-Atlantic guest! (Shane doesn’t count because he was in the U.S. with us when we recorded.) Peter came out as gay to his wife of 27 years at the age of 53 and decided to maintain his faithfulness to her. He shares with us his story about coming to terms with his identity during andropause and his experiences working with the LGBTQ community while not “acting” on his sexuality. Learn more about his story through the links below!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Peter was profiled in The Times (Times subscribers only).

» Peter also shared his story in the short film, “Latecomers.”

» Also mentioned: The Boston Diocese lists all its accused child abusers.

After a little hiatus, the podcast is back with some lighter fare discussion about pop culture, but of course with the brilliant analysis and commentary you expect from the likes of Peterson and Zack. Follow the rambling discussion through Lady Gaga/Jo Calderone, Dancing with the Stars, Torchwood, Mad Men, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Crazy Stupid Love, Laughter in the Dark, and more. Also, you’ll find out just what Peterson was doing during last week’s east coast earthquake. Leave comments and hit us up on Twitter!

This week, Zack and Peterson continue the conversation about ex-gay therapy in the media — in particular, the NPR story that featured Peterson. But though some media portrayals still aren’t getting the message right, a new film paints a better picture. This Is What Love In Action Looks Like follows the story of Zach Stark, the 16-year-old who was forced into Love In Action’s Refuge program by his parents and provided detailed accounts of its rules and “therapies” on his MySpace. By showing how harmful ex-gay therapy can be, this film creates a new opportunity to educate the public on the harms of ex-gay therapy.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» TP: NPR Misrepresents Ex-Gay Therapy As ‘Controversial’ And Still Up For ‘Debate’
» TP: NPR’s Featured ‘Ex-Gay’ Guest Commits Over $200,000 To Dangerous, Unscientific Ex-Gay ‘Coachings’
» PT: Ex-Gay on NPR. Wrong question & Things unmentioned
» TP: Ten Things NPR Got Wrong Defending The Falsely Balanced Ex-Gay Story

» TP: Profiting Off Stigma: Janet Boynes, Bachmann’s Ex-Gay, Anti-Gay Superstar

» Ex-Gay Watch: Review: This Is What Love in Action Looks Like (Includes Upcoming Screening Dates)

Thanks to Michele Bachmann’s family business, ex-gay therapy is getting mainstream coverage in the news once again. But is it getting the coverage it deserves? Peterson and Zack welcome Christine Robinson back to the podcast to discuss how the media can better respond to the ex-gay movement and challenge the harmful rhetoric that continues to permeate society. Check out the many links below for the latest.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Listen back to our November 2010 interview with Christine.

» Citation and abstract for “Genocidal Intentions: Social Death and the Ex-Gay Movement” (Spivey & Robinson, 2010).

» Marcus Bachmann calls gays “barbarians” who need to be “disciplined.” The barbarians protest.

» Young people are more susceptible to ex-gay rhetoric.

» Ex-gay Stephen Bennett on Joy Behar.

Reverend Elizabeth Jeremiah (from the Elizabeth Jeremiah Global Worldwide Ministries in Jesus) stops by (hacks in) to the podcast today to chat with Zack about polygamy. The Brown family from TLC’s “Sister Wives” is suing the state of Utah to overturn the criminal ban on bigamy, and Rev. Jeremiah has some Biblical precedent to support their case. Peterson makes it back into the call to add some context from Dan Savage about being “monogamish.” Is it right to assume that monogamy is the best solution for all relationships? We pull back the curtain a bit on marriage and hope you join the conversation!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» The family from “Sister Wives” sues Utah over privacy protections.

» Dan Savage talks about being “monogamish” with his husband.

Peterson has wronged Zack; can Zack forgive him? In this fairly sober episode, Zack and Peterson dig into the idea of reconciliation and building bridges between the queer community and those who oppose it. What does it look like to build a bridge between conflicting groups? What kind of sacrifices and compromises need to be made to build it and by whom? There are those who seek to develop a bond of understanding between the groups, but what factors ensure the success of that effort? Once you listen, please feel free to leave your thoughts as a comment or email them to us at zackfordblogs@gmail.com and p2saki@gmail.com.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Check out Jane Brazell’s blog. She contributed some great thoughts to our discussion this week.

» The random feminist quote Peterson shared came from Ellen Willis.

» Check out the ABC News coverage of Marcus Bachmann’s reparative therapy clinic.

Zack and Peterson celebrate the recent marriage equality victory in New York, but mourn with Marvin that GENDA still hasn’t passed. After a broader discussion on the role of marriage in the LGBT movement, Zack vents a bit about President Obama’s un”evolving” position on the issue. There are also some shoutouts to some other cool trans and gender-neutral content. Check out the links!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Gender neutral pre-school in Sweden.

» Did NY LGBs Win Marriage By Throwing Trans-Friendly GENDA Under The Bus?

» Justin Bond: ‘I think everybody’s trans’

» Catch Kimberly Reed’s story on The Moth Podcast while it’s still up!

» Peterson on the Anarchist Reverend.

» TIMELINE: Tracking Barack Obama’s Position On Marriage Equality

This post was generated live at Netroots Nation 2011 in Minneapolis, MN.

I want to offer one more post today synthesizing what I addressed in my previous two posts today. In both, I spoke to the partnerships between groups and strategies that are often perceived as antagonistic, and in this third post, I want to make sense of that in a discussion about trust.

Trust between individuals and groups can be incredibly difficult to build and requires outreach in both directions. Organizations need to be able to trust that the bloggers who may very well criticize them and hold them accountable are committed to the same efforts of LGBT equality. Likewise, bloggers need to be able to trust that the organizations are prioritizing the movement over the organization and that their strategies are an effective approach to the desired solutions. In the same vein, insider and outsider organizations need to be able to trust that the strategy of the other is ultimately contributing to the success, not creating new obstacles.

In achieving this trust across the movement, risks have to be taken. Insider organizations have a particular obligation to earn trust with other leaders in the movement. By including them in off-the-record conversations about their strategy, they can entrust bloggers, direct action groups, and others with certain tips that can accentuate the campaign. Ego cannot get in the way of this happening; if any particular group or individual attempts to take full credit on an initiative, they are effectively eliminating the potential to build a coalition.

Likewise, as skeptical as “outsiders” might be, giving the insiders a certain benefit of doubt goes a long way to building the bridge of trust from the other direction. There are definitely times when a blogger’s investigation can blow the lid on what might have been a very successful strategy. My hope would be that insider orgs see the value of blogger and queer media perspectives, even if it’s not the picture they would paint. Effective communication across that bridge can alleviate all of these problems; bloggers can honor the confidentiality of the big orgs as the orgs bring the bloggers into the over-arching strategy.

I’ll leave it at that for now. This is a complicated paradigm change we must achieve, but it’s built on lessons learned from campaigns over the past decade. If we can tap into that greater synergy and see the interacting potential of diverse strategies across the movement, our in-fighting will come to an end and our success will be guaranteed.

This post was generated live at Netroots Nation 2011 in Minneapolis, MN.

As groups debate the best strategy for moving an LGBT equality agenda, there is often a perceived conflict between the “insider” private negotiating and the “outsider” public direct actions, blogging, etc. As I’ve listened to the dialogues this weekend, it seems to me that the conflict is, in fact, perceived. While various groups, leaders, lobbyists, and bloggers might not agree with each other’s strategies, that disagreement does not mean that the strategies actually conflict. In stark contrast, the diverse strategies can actually create an incredibly synergistic movement if strategists use each other’s tactics instead of just worrying about distinguishing themselves.

Unfortunately, egos on both sides and the absence of an orchestrator for the meta-movement seem to prevent this synergy from being fully realized.

I thought that Heather Cronk from GetEQUAL made this point most eloquently in a panel Thursday morning about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the DREAM Act. When GetEQUAL did direct actions at the White House fence, it might have superficially looked like a rebellion against the insider tactics of “Gay, Inc.” lobbying that a group like HRC traditionally does. But the two are not mutually exclusive. As Heather pointed out, “moments of chaos help cut through the political bullshit,” and actually create more space for the HRCs of the movement to exert more power. They can go into the meetings and say, “Look, we’re trying to make this work, but we’ve got these ‘crazies’ acting out, so you have to give us more to work with.”

Some might not buy that argument, but as we realized in the LGBT strategy session yesterday, there is another very important benefit to those kinds of direct actions. Even if the action does not directly benefit the political negotiating, it indirectly supports the movement by generating media stories. Often times, there is very little happening in the news to sustain coverage of a particular issue (e.g. ENDA). Blogs cannot drive any coverage to the mainstream media if there are no stories to cover. Introduce a well-executed direct action, however, and we get breaking news, several days of coverage, follow-up for arrests and trials, and more importantly, personal faces on the issue. Even if insider groups cannot use the direct action in their negotiations, those negotiations still benefit from media attention and the shaping of public opinion on the issue.

The outcome, inarguably, is synergistic momentum, and I think the DADT effort exemplified the way it can work. While some may try to paint a revisionist perspective, there was a sharp divide in early 2010 between activists and the Obama administration about what approach to take on repeal. The administration was opposed to pursuing any legislative repeal until after the military survey was complete, rather than concurrently. While it’s hard to argue what-if’s, I think there is a compelling case to make that direct actions by GetEQUAL and SLDN’s blog-promoted campaign of letters from servicemembers advanced the campaign that made sure repeal happened before the end of 2010.

Regardless of our roles in the movement, we all need to get to a place where we see the difference between “I wouldn’t do that” and “We shouldn’t do that.” There might never be an orchestrator to “conduct” the movement at a meta-level above all of its players. If, however, we can trust each other and play off each other instead of playing against each other, we can truly work in concert toward the LGBT equality we all believe in.

This post was generated live at Netroots Nation 2011 in Minneapolis, MN.

I haven’t posted much here on good ol’ ZFb (I’ve been kind of busy), but I thought it would be a good place to share a few thoughts from my weekend at Netroots Nation. Many of our conversations this week — particularly in the LGBT movement — have been about cooperation between blogs and organizations, as well as the sustainability of independent blogs. I want to share a little case study from this very weekend that I think exemplifies effective partnership. (I’m also happy to share this because it speaks to the amazing work the staff at GLAAD continues to do despite the upheaval in its leadership right now.)

On Thursday, I was going through some of the day’s news and found a story about a lesbian couple who were harassed by a security guard at a Minnesota Twins game. Because the Twins had announced the day before they would be creating an “It Gets Better” video, it seemed important to highlight that videos don’t solve all problems. I was sitting next to my good friend Allison Palmer, GLAAD’s Director of Digital Initiatives, and I mentioned it to her; she hadn’t yet heard about it. We had a great off-the-record conversation (that I got permission to mention here) about the incident as two individuals with unique professional perspectives. Allison had some great ideas and opinions that I definitely incorporated into my post at ThinkProgress; my post was stronger because of my conversation with her.

Shortly after Allison and I parted ways, I got an email from her colleague, Aaron McQuade (GLAAD’s Deputy Director of News and Field Media). Allison had let Aaron know about the story, and he contacted me to share some extra details from his direct interactions with the team and the commitment they’d made to GLAAD to rectify the situation. I incorporated them into the post, which had fortunately not yet been published.

Then, shortly after my post went up, GLAAD published their post, crediting (and more importantly, linking back to!) my post on the story. Obviously, the tone of my post (“It doesn’t get better…”) was quite different from GLAAD’s (“Twins will reach out…”), but in exactly the ways that respect our unique goals as a blogger and an org. For this “small” story, both the blogger and the org were able to benefit from cooperation without compromising.

So, here are the highlights of this experience:

» The blogger and someone from the organization had insightful, off-the-record conversation that highlighted both sides’ perspectives.

» The org provided background info about its response to support the blogger’s story.

» The blogger was given the opportunity to “break” the story first.

» The org linked back to the blog to support the blog’s traffic.

» Though the blog and org approached the story in different ways, the result was a synergistic response to the incident.

At the end of the day, an incident of harassment at a baseball game is not going to be the revolutionizing political story of the year, but here it demonstrates how the “insiders” and the “outsiders” can work together toward the common goal of LGBT equality.

Two episodes in one week! Well, kind of. Not for us. But we’re back, and this week we dive head first into the Anthony Weiner “scandal.” So he showed some PG-13 pics on Twitter, but what did he actually do wrong? Listen as Peterson and Zack consider the matter from a perspective of sexual liberation. And then, we offer some tips on giving great workshops at conferences, with a brief lesson on Howard Gardner’s (not John Gardner’s) multiple intelligences. Peterson has lots of background sounds and Zack sounds like he’s in a submarine and getting everyone’s name wrong (sorry, Sen. Kyl — kind of), but the discussion will be so captivating you won’t even notice!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Learn more about Gardner’s multiple intelligences!

It’s the long lost episode! Zack and Peterson remained unraptured, but Zack’s blog definitely took a hit and the podcasting utility was down. But things are right again and the episode is finally up for you to listen! We started recording around 5:50 PM on May 21st and continued the discussion through the non-existent earthquake and Rapture while birds chirped in the background and friends sipped on alcoholic beverages. What’s up with this Rapture thing, and what does it mean for our lives from here on out? Take a listen and then join the discussion by leaving a comment!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Interracial marriage polling vs. same-sex marriage polling.

» Tennessee’s ban on nondiscrimination ordinances.

Okay, so first I assumed Stefon was gay. Then I backtracked and allowed for a bit more ambiguity about his sexuality, admitting that it wasn’t clear and didn’t define him. Can we at least now admit that he’s got a serious thing for Seth? It’s clear he almost already thinks they’re dating… and he wants to change his diapers. Or maybe the fact that he’s promoting bi-curious beach parties should be a clue! Not that it matters.

I recently attended a Stefon-themed party. Only a few people took the theme to heart, but there was a DJ Baby Bok Choy and a Jewpid in attendance. I hope the creative nonsense just keeps coming. Here’s what Stefon offered up for Mother’s Day!

Seventh Appearance – May 7, 2011

First club: Uuuuuuungh!

» Located in the middle of the West Side highway.
» Bi-curious beach party.
» (Italian) Club owner: Bologna Danza
» Split kicks.
» Pachucos.
» Pile after pile of expired Lunchables.
» Hawaiian cleaning lady that looks like Smokey Robinson.
» Natalie Portman? No. An old Irish black man that we call “Murphy Brown.”
» This Sunday: 2-year-old ultimate fighter “Drooly Lips Jackson.” He’s got fists like little empanadas. And he’s my best friend.

Second club: Spicy! (said in a strange voice)

» Opened in 2017.
» Upper east side of a dumpster.
» 24-hour bitch fest.
» Club owner: Rabbi Jew Diamond Phillips.
» Sandworms.
» Geishas.
» Rock eaters.
» A 7-level course in adult education.
» Kick back in a subway sleeping bag. (“When you’re on the train and you sit between two guys in FUBU jackets.”)

Stefon’s mom is Ms. Stefon and his dad is David Bowie.

How to say thank-you to your mom:

» Take her to central park and bond while flying a human kite. (“Where you tie a string to a midget in a windbreaker and then run through a field.”)

Seth’s Assessment: ”Even though you didn’t help tonight at all, no young party monster should be alone on Mother’s Day. So why don’t you come home with me and meet my mom.”

Dr. Rachel Tudor, a professor of English, Humanities, and Philosophy at SOSU has been denied tenure despite ample support from her colleagues, immediate supervisors, a Faculty Senate resolution with no opposition, and two Faculty Appeals Committee rulings in her favor. No explanation was given for the rejection, and she was blocked from reapplying (as many professors successfully do), again without explanation. At this point, Tudor has exhausted every forum to rectify her situation and her contract with the university will be terminated as of May 31 “without cause.”

All the evidence suggests that Dr. Tudor has been discriminated against for being transgender, primarily by Dr. Douglas McMillan, SOSU’s Vice President for Academic Affairs. When Tudor first transitioned, McMillan request she be terminated because her identity “offends his Baptist beliefs.” Though he could not have her fired, he was successful at requiring she only be allowed to use a single-stall restroom on a different floor from her office. In addition, the dean who oversees Tudor’s department, Dr. Lucretia Scoufos, regularly disrespected Tudor by referring to her with male pronouns. These two individuals had sole authority over the original tenure decision and McMillan was also who blocked her from reapplying.

Despite the way it seems her administrators went out of their way to block her continued employment, Tudor appreciates how others have stood up for her:

I’m completely overwhelmed and gratified so many people have taken initiative and shown their support. It’s amazing to see that people have such integrity.

According to a recent study, nearly half (47 percent) of transgender people have been fired, not hired, or denied promotion for their identity. Oklahoma has no state-level discrimination protections for gender identity, and without a federal ENDA, there is nothing to protect talented, successful employees like Tudor from being terminated without cause. Still, Tudor has taken her case to the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission, the US Department of Education, and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in hopes of intervention. You can support her by signing a petition for her reinstatement.

Glen previously joined the podcast for a discussion about gay-for-pay porn actors, but now he’s back to tell us all about his just-published memoir, The Jack Bank. In it, he chronicles growing up gay in Apartheid South Africa and participating in the revolution that led to sexual orientation becoming a protected class in that nation. He shares an excerpt from the book (despite an interruption by cats) and fields questions from Zack and Peterson not only about the content of the book, but the process of writing it and the importance of memoir as a genre. Order your copy of The Jack Bank today!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Buy The Jack Bank on Amazon.com.

» Visit Glen Retief’s homepage and blog.

» Peterson on being Glen’s partner: Two are Better than One–Art, Love, & Partnership

After a special monologue by Peterson, we discuss BODIES. How do we talk about bodies? What’s that intersexuality thing? What challenges do trans people still face? We lay it all out on the table and just talk about all our hesitations and yet curiosities with bodies, mixed with some recent news.  Take a listen, and then tell us your hangups and joys when it comes to bodies!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Peterson Toscano’s A Musing: Henry Kissinger had a Boob Job!

» Intersex Society of North America

» Abortion not a women’s issue? Feministing: Behind the backlash: what’s so scary about deconstructing the gender binary?

» Malaysia’s got an anti-gay camp for boys, but it’s illegal.

» Texas considers banning trans marriage. But in Texas, different kinds of trans marriages are legal because of Littleton v. Prange.

» PBS’s In The Life highlights transgender Injustice at Every Turn.

This past Wednesday was National Ask An Atheist Day, a campaign by the Secular Student Alliance to encourage young nonbelievers to help their peers dispel mysteries about atheists.

Though I am no longer at an educational institution, I welcomed questions and answered them on Twitter. Most of the questions I got were from friends, some of whom were complaining I wasn’t answering the questions on Facebook where they were asking them. Here are all the answers I offered. Remember, anyone’s free to ask me an atheist-related question anytime! Enjoy!

Q: What’s your back up, man, in case of the Rapture?
A: I’ll finally be able to get some reading done.

Q: Do you believe in the possibility of intelligent energy forces that cannot be seen or detected?
A: No. If they’re so intelligent, they should learn how to communicate.

Q: Why ask #askanatheist questions when the bible has all the answers? I’m just sayin’
A: Someone who thinks the bible has all the answers would have capitalized the b.

Q: WHY DO YOU HAVE NO MORALS?!?!!?
A: Because I’m motivated by Satan, who I definitely believe in, and worship.

Q: If God doesn’t exist, in fact if a loving God doesn’t exist, then why did she invent beer?
A: I believe your pronouns are wrong, John. The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s heave has active beer volcanoes all over.

Q: Were you stung by the scorpion of atheism before or after you were bitten by the serpent of homosexuality?
A: I was the frog who carried the scorpion across the river, the serpent ate my remains, and I was reincarnated as Zack.

Q: When choosing a virgin for your ritual human sacrifices to Satan, does having had oral sex rule that person out?
A: Satan uses the strictest definition of virginity to encourage people to sin more. Oral is totally fair game.

Q: Do you think we’ll ever get to a place where superstition and big brother in the sky don’t rule the populace?
A: Sure, just go to Europe. Their governments even have institutionalized religion and they don’t care. #Paradise

Q: Why do you want to force working class people to labor on Xmas, probably making those little Darwinfish bumperstickers too?
A: All our bumperstickers are homemade, and unless Christmas is on the Sabbath, there’s no excuse not to be working.

Q: Do atheists celebrate Easter?
A: Yes! On Easter Sunday, we sing prettier songs in the shower than we normally sing.

Q: Do you hate Peeps and chocolate bunnies?
A: I’m not particularly fond of peeps, but I like my bunnies dark and hollow, just like most religious dogma.

Q: So are you telling me (the Christian) to stop asking questions?
A: Umm… nope!

Q: Why do atheists always want to shut down debate?!
A: I’ll confess, our use of critical thinking, reasoning, logic, and facts does seem to inhibit further debate.

Q: If I follow you around the internet like this, do I get a coupon for a $500 Walmart gift certificate?
A: I don’t believe in Walmart.

After past discussions of sexual fantasies and even an interview with a porn star, Zack and Peterson decided it was time to actually talk about porn. In particular, the conversation addresses two questions: what were folks’ first experience with porn and what role has porn played in folks’ lives? There is sharing all around, including from a number of commenters on Peterson’s blog. We try to tackle the taboo around acknowledging porn’s existence in our lives and celebrate some of the important benefits it can actually offer us. Please feel free to leave your own comments (even if you disagree) and feel free to share your own story as well!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Peterson’s invitation to discuss: What about porn?

» This week’s erotic poem: How To Make Love to a Trans Person by Gabe Moses

This week, Zack and Peterson welcome to the show Carl Siciliano, founder and executive director of The Ali Forney Center in New York City, which provides shelter for LGBT homeless youth. Since its founding nearly ten years ago, The Ali Forney Center has been on the forefront of addressing the epidemic of homelessness that impacts young LGBT people at absurdly disproportionate rates. Still, in 2011, the center only can offer 57 of the 200 beds available nationwide for the thousands of LGBT youth living on the streets and fights for the funds to provide even that. Carl shares with us the history of the center and the uphill battle to save our community’s young people.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: Sublimation Point by Jason Schneiderman.

» Donate to The Ali Forney Center.

» Sign the Change.org petition to protect LGBT homeless youth in NY.

» Read Carl Siciliano’s open letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo.

» Read more stories from LGBT homeless youth in California (PDF).

…

Believe it or not, the American Family Association is (I think—who can tell?) still boycotting Pepsi and Home Depot, and probably a few other companies who have done anything pro-LGBT. I guess that demonstrates that the AFA is all bark, no bite.

But part of the power of a boycott is its visibility. It’s not always just enough to not shop at a certain store or not buy a certain product. For example, I don’t buy peanut butter or eat at Long John Silver’s, but not because I’m boycotting either.

I actually have been boycotting Target, though. And I’ll be honest, I haven’t been the best at it. Sure, I’ve not purchased anything at Target in a good 10 months, but I haven’t been vocal about it, and I certainly haven’t stood in front of Target protesting or written letters to the editor or done any of the things effective boycotters should do. For me, it’s just been a matter of personal principle.

There are a lot of folks in the LGBT community who shrug their shoulders at boycotting Target, and I can appreciate their reluctance. I used to think Target (tar-zhay) was the gay store. It was the anti-Wal-Mart and anybody who was anybody had one of those chic medusa lamps in their dorm room. And Target has long been lauded by HRC as being pro-LGBT. Target’s donations last summer challenged that image, and just because we can understand why Target would support a pro-business PAC doesn’t forgive them for supporting an anti-gay PAC, nor for continuing to support anti-gay candidates since that debacle. Lady Gaga’s calling off of her deal with Target should’ve suggested we haven’t seen the last of the store’s anti-gay antics.

The same goes with Chick-Fil-A. A lot of people really like Chick-Fil-A and don’t want to stop enjoying their tasty chicken. I am fortunate, I suppose, that thanks to geography I’ve never really had Chick-Fil-A. (Ironically, the one time I’ve ever had it was on the campus of a university who ended up not hiring me as a social justice educator because they weren’t “ready” for someone so outspoken about LGBT issues; unsurprisingly, that campus has not had much debate about the presence of a Chick-Fil-A in its campus center.) But plenty of folks will continue to eat there, regardless of how anti-LGBT the company might be. After all, it’s just chicken, right?

But this week, we learned a little bit more about both of these companies and just how anti-LGBT (and duplicitously so) they really are. In the case of Chick-Fil-A, Equality Matters uncovered that Chick-Fil-A is a WHOLE lot more anti-LGBT than we already knew them to be… to the tune of $1.1 million. And that’s money not just going to pro-business right-wing PACs; it’s going directly into the hands of “pro-family” groups who spread lies about LGBT people, defend Christian bullies, and promote harmful ex-gay therapies.

In the case of Target, we learned this week of their lawsuit against Canvass for a Cause, and as I wrote about over on The Wonk Room, they seem to be targeting this group exclusively because of its support of same-sex marriage. While the complaint speaks of CFAC’s harassment of customers, the trial saw no first-hand testimony confirming these allegations. But Target’s own filed complaint (PDF), corroborated by its employee’s testimony, confirms that Target is concerned customers will “never shop at Target again,” “ensure their friends and family do not shop at Target,” and “return everything they bought at Target” because they “believe Target promotes the same sensitive political message” as CFAC.

And while CFAC promotes a number of issues, that particular “sensitive” message is support of gay marriage marriage equality; it’s the only issue mentioned in the whole case from the documents I’ve seen, and they mention it a lot. Daniel Brown, the employee who provides the only testimony hearsay (PDF) about the complaints, said that some customers were “offended” and that “many mothers with children have complained about the sensitive nature” of the messaging.

For decades, the LGBT community has been fighting the meme that queer people are dangerous to children—that we’re going to molest them, recruit them, and teach them all about anal sex while they’re in Kindergarten. And here is a supposed “friend” using that same old stereotype to defend itself in a gratuitous lawsuit against a grassroots group being defended by a volunteer lawyer.

Target doesn’t want to be known as supporting marriage equality because gays are dangerous to children. That’s the takeaway. It’s in the public record.

So the decision comes back to the LGBT community. Do we still patronize these companies—companies that actively demonize us and work against our equality? While my personal answer will continue to be No, I think the larger community needs to have a serious conversation about it.

If the recent poll on marriage equality tells us anything, it’s that we have more allies than ever. If we really wanted to mobilize a huge block of people to support us, I’m betting that we could. The problem, I think, is that we’re too comfortable. We like shopping at Target and eating at Chick-Fil-A and we don’t see their actions as that big of a deal—at least not big enough to change our habits. We want equality, but it almost seems as if many of us would rather wait than make any sacrificial efforts in the meantime.

Maybe AFA is the lesson for us. Maybe boycotts don’t work in 2011, or don’t catch on, or aren’t worth it. Maybe bad press is enough to get the job done, along with a certain quota of negative tweets. Or maybe we’re desensitized to our inequality; we’re willing to tolerate it, such that  it takes something as big and visible as Prop 8 or DADT to really get us off our asses.

But gosh, I’d love to see us try. I’d love to see pickets in front of Targets and Chick-Fil-As (Chicks-Fil-A?). I’d love to see all the big orgs really visibly condemning the corporations and every single blogger actively promoting the boycott. I don’t think we’ve tried it on the national stage, at least not anytime recently. And certainly we saw a lot of success—or at least visibility—from the boycotts of Prop 8 supporters like the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. So the only thing stopping us is ourselves.

At the end of it all, when we finally get all the equality we deserve in this country, I hope we don’t look back and say, “We could’ve gotten it a lot sooner if we’d just acted more like we wanted it.”

Imposing an every-22-episodes tradition, Zack and Peterson are back this week to continue the open conversation about religion that began in Ep. 22, Reeking of Faith. This week, the conversation revolves around the idea of truth and knowledge and the motivations for good deeds. The goal of these episodes is to generate discussion, so please leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments or on our Facebook page. We were able to play nice this week, so you all should too. Enjoy!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Go back and listen to Episode 22 – Reeking of Faith

» This week’s possibly-erotic poem: “I Am and I Am Not” by Rumi.

» Sign the petition against the ex-gay therapy iPhone app.

» Read Peterson’s post on “Straight Supremacy.”

» Huffington Post: Congress Considers “In God We Trust”… But Who Is This God?

It’s Zack’s last day in Pennsylvania, and for once, Peterson has come to him! This week, we delve back into the world of ex-gay therapy because Lisa Ling forces us to respond to the Our America exposé of Exodus International on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Almost the entire program was an open platform for ex-gay therapy, with very little challenge or critique or basic reporting about the ineffectiveness and real harm that comes from ex-gay therapy. We address the problems with the special, and invite our special guest Anthony to shed some light on the world of ex-straights, which were not featured at all in the special. ALSO: Zack premieres an original erotic poem! You can read it below.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Read Peterson’s response to the Our America ex-gay special.

» Watch Wayne Besen’s response to the Our America ex-gay special (Truth Wins Out).

» Relisten to our interview with Christine Robinson about how ex-gay therapy = genocide.

» Read Zack’s erotic poem:

Puddlejumper

No words or pleasantries expressed,
An expected tolerance for each other’s
temporary company.
Yet moments after take off,
another occurs:
His knee firmly against mine.

Suddenly, I am consumed with all that he is,
But there is nothing more I need know.
The buzz in my thigh is as crisp as his
military haircut.

And though this 47-minute puddlejumper
Leaves little expectation for tolerating more,
I no longer worry about making my connection.

It’s already been made.

Okay, I confess.

I’m the one who caused the earthquake in Japan. All the radiation from the nuclear power plant explosions and possible meltdowns? That’ll be my fault too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-sSeqPywI

I’m very, very evil. All we atheists are. I’m going to go be evil right now… by taking a shower. That’s right: an atheist cleansing in water. And that water is going to go back out into the world, and anyone who comes in contact with it is going to absorb my atheism and be tainted by my evil. (And thanks to homeopathy, the more my atheist cooties get diluted, the more potent they’ll become.)

You know what, tamtampamela? Keep on praying. In fact, spend every waking hour just cloistered away in prayer. I think the more time you spend praying and not communicating with any real people or having any real interaction the world, the better off we’ll all be. And you just keep on being joyful about people dying by God’s wrath like a good Christian should be.

It is SO weird to think that 26 months ago I started this blog just as a hobby, a little place to synthesize some things that were on my mind and hopefully create some discussion. I never really thought it would become a prominent part of my life and identity, and it seems that now it is very much the defining aspect of who I am.

I spent this weekend in San Francisco communing with 40+ other LGBT bloggers and publishers, as you can see in the photo above. As I felt at Netroots Nation last year, I still had moments where I looked around and still couldn’t believe where I was and with whom I was working. I hope this doesn’t come off as false modesty, but there’s still something crazy about seeing your tweets be retweeted by bloggers that you have always looked to as role models or by mainstream LGBT publishers. I’m still not sure how I got here.

Add to that the fact that after I return east from San Francisco tonight, I will be packing up to move to DC this week to start my full-time job as an LGBT blogger. It’s now going to be my occupation—my primary purpose in life—what I stake my reputation on. It just blows my mind.

And I guess what I want to say is… Go for it. I’m not where I am because there’s anything special about me. I’m not being handed anything on a silver platter. While I’ve certainly been mentored, I don’t think I’ve gotten any special advantages as a result of connections that I’ve made. I just committed myself to my writing and to making the difference I want to make.

Commitment, passion, integrity. That’s what it takes.

The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of folks out there who think it’s all about just drawing attention to themselves. They provoke just to provoke and complain just to complain. They don’t write their blogs or tweet their tweets for anybody but themselves. They think if they can cause a stink that they mean something and that they’re worth listening to.

They aren’t.

The power of the blogosphere is the passion of individuals to communicate ideas for the benefit of others. We can work together to amplify important messages (like the topics of youth suicide we discussed this weekend in San Francisco) to affect the ideas discussed by society when the mainstream media doesn’t. We can challenge each other and engage with each other, but we also trust and respect each other because we have common goals. None of us live luxuriously off our efforts; it is the difference we can make that propels us.

This weekend, as many of us were connecting and sharing important knowledge with each other, some antagonists posing as “gay activists” tried to interrupt our efforts. Motivated only by their own egos, they attempted to hijack our twitter stream and paint us as a group of uber-privileged brats who want for nothing and are secretly out to destroy the LGBT movement. They attacked us, insulted us, smeared us, bullied us, and victimized themselves despite clearly having no understanding of who many of us are, what we write about, or what the purpose of this meet-up was. They also wanted it to sound like this was some secret exclusive meeting, despite the fact we livetweeted the entire event. It couldn’t have been more transparent.

These individuals have no credibility as advocates, activists, or even as writers, but they feel because they have a platform on the internet that their point of view is valid. It is clear when the only effective way to engage with such individuals is to ignore them that they do not have substantive or meaningful contributions to make towards our supposedly common goals.

It is this selfishly motivated approach to blogging that gets folks nowhere. They do not get respect; their ideas do not get traction. They are not worth a single retort because the attention of such a retort is all they care about.

The blogosphere is a community, and the more that we can work together, the better. To those whose approach is to attack, belittle, and (self-)ostracize, there is no reason to invite them to further engage. It is those who aspire to educate and inform and create a more inclusive society who must be highlighted and promoted.

I continue to be honored that I have been welcomed and promoted in this way in the blogosphere. I admire the brilliant minds that I now get to interact with on a daily basis and look forward to all the opportunities yet ahead to work with them to make society a better place for LGBT people. And to all our detractors; keep trying. I’d rather you waste your time as our petulant trolls than bother other people with your nonsense.

Zack and Peterson are back in person with each other, but it might be the last time for a while, as Zack has accepted a job in the DC area! But don’t worry, the podcast isn’t going anywhere! This week we take a trip to Harding University in Arkansas, Flour Bluff School District in Texas, and even Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas! The topic? Free speech and queer identities in education. Take a listen to learn all the latest happenings about how queer people are being erased!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: Episode of Hands by Hart Crane.

» Read the Harding University Queer Press, follow them on Twitter, Like them on Facebook, and watch the President’s scathing speech.

» Learn more about the decision to prevent the GSA in Corpus Christi.

» Zack’s response to the Westboro SCOTUS decision and Bill O’Reilley’s discussion with Megyn Kelly.

» Learn more about the “Be Happy, Not Gay” t-shirt controversy.

» OUTspoken 2011

» True Colors 2011

» Adelina Anthony

» Jade Esteban Estrada

While a Music Ed major, all my extracurriculars were in student affairs. I went to grad school for Student Affairs.

While in grad school, I thought I had a good balance of music and student affairs, but I also ended up starting a blog.

And now, I will be taking a job in blogging.

This week, I’ve accepted an offer to join the team over at the Center for American Progress as an LGBT researcher and blogger (for Think Progress and The Wonk Room). I’m not sure what my posting regimen there will look like yet, but it’s safe to say that ZFb will not be getting nearly as much attention. More on that to come.

For now, at least, the fine folks I’ll be working with have indicated that this blog doesn’t have to go anywhere. I still may very well write here from time to time when I need to get something out that I can’t really write about over there. At the very least, Peterson and I are committed to maintaining Queer and Queerer on at least a semi-regular basis!

It never occurred to me that this little hobby of mine could turn into a career, and so I have to thank a few folks who made it possible.

First of all, Pete Berg needs to be thanked. He doesn’t do anything for me on a regular basis, but it’s thanks to his generosity that this blog (and its podcast) has a home on the interwebs. Thank you, Pete, for continuing to host ZFb!

Pam Spaulding and Bil Browning: The two of you have been incredible mentors and I truly appreciate all of your encouragement and support. I would not be taking this step forward if it weren’t for your promotion of my writing.

Michael Crawford/Freedom to Marry and Mike Rogers: Thanks to your financial support, I was able to attend Netroots Nation this year, which was surely a turning point for me. It was the first time I stood among other bloggers and felt like I was legitimate and doing something real, and the connections I made there were priceless. Thank you for helping me on this path!

My fabulous readers: Thank you for being here, supporting me, promoting my posts, and commenting!

Lots of exciting change to come and I’m not sure what it all will look like!!!

They won their right to protest, and I’m glad. It may be vile, but it’s free speech.

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here–inflict great pain,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

But I’m going to go a step further and say that I’m also glad they get to continue protesting.

Why would I be glad about a group of crazies continuing to spout anti-gay filth in incredibly insensitive settings?

Because they are a stimulus that forces everyone else to react.

Folks who are anti-gay have to respond to Westboro by clarifying they are not that anti-gay. But of course, they are! And so often, the distinction is made in regards to Westboro’s rhetoric, but not their message. Anti-gay opponents don’t want to be associated with “God hates fags,” but it’s amazing how many stop short of saying “God doesn’t hate fags.”

I’m not alone in feeling this way about Westboro. A group called Phags for Phelps promotes the impact WBC has as a catalyst for LGBT equality. Shirley Phelps-Roper, herself, has made the case that anyone who claims to disagree with WBC has no business opposing same-sex marriage. In other words, you either oppose homosexuality like WBC does or you don’t oppose it. It’s a pretty worthwhile challenge for other anti-gay folks to respond to.

Shirley also points out that there was not nearly the same kind of outrage to WBC until they started protesting military funerals. Are people actually bothered by the fact that WBC is anti-gay, or just the fact that they disrupt military funerals? You don’t have to support the Phelps clan to make some pretty compelling arguments about how folks respond to them.

Justice Alito is no exception. A sensitive soul, he offered the only dissent in the decision, asserting that WBC did impose real pain on the Snyder family, regardless of how many laws they obeyed in the process. In making his case that the pain was “irreparable,” he offered this paragraph (p. 7 of his dissent, citations omitted):

Other signs would most naturally have been understood as suggesting—falsely—that Matthew was gay. Homosexuality was the theme of many of the signs. There were signs reading “God Hates Fags,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Fags Doom Nations,” and “Fag Troops.” Another placard depicted two men engaging in anal intercourse. A reasonable bystander seeing those signs would have likely concluded that they were meant to suggest that the deceased was a homosexual.

This paragraph was presented in the context of making the case that WBC “brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack… was almost certain to inflict injury.” Is Justice Alito implying, then, that to imply an individual is gay is an injurious attack against that individual’s character?

Justice Alito would be saying (and I think he is) that being gay is a bad thing. After all, his argument is intended to defend the military family, not LGBT people. How can we not conclude that Justice Alito is homophobic?

The Phelps clan certainly do some harmful things, and I’m not condoning them. In fact, I don’t think anybody is. But they’re going to keep doing what they do, and I think it’s important to focus on the positive. The Westboro Baptist Church is a litmus test for homophobia. They’re the one group who doesn’t sugarcoat their rhetoric, and so we should use that to our advantage.

You don’t have to like speech to appreciate the value of upholding free speech.

I still feel that my post, “I Don’t Want You To Pray For Me,” is one of the most important posts I’ve written. I refer people back to it often and often reread it myself. Folks regularly criticize prayer’s ineffectiveness, but I take the argument a step further and call it selfish (i.e. its first priority is self-reinforcement of beliefs). This argument is compelling because it’s much harder to debate and is actually proven further true by any attempt to argue the effectiveness of prayer. In a comment left today, “Sister Denise” demonstrates this perfectly.

By the way, why don’t these evangelical commenters ever know how to use multiple paragraphs?

Wow…this is an OLD interesting talk, but I just wanted to say…PRAYER does work, but for only those that TRULY walk righteously. It is VERY FEW, but it is done. When you are in RIGHT standing, meaning, a sin free (unwicked) life you will have POWER to pray and see someone healed, lame walk and blind see. But the weakness and wickedness of human beings destroys their own ability to live as God intended. God the creater and Jesus is ONE, and Jesus say if you except Him and keep HIS doing/saying/commandment like He did God the Father/Creator…the SAME power and MORE you could have. Humans and their doubts and DISOBEDIENCE keep that POWER from working in them so the world don’t see nor comprehend the TRUE POWER OF GOD. My brother, whether you want me to or not….God COMMANDED me to pray for you as I pray for myself….I WILL OBEY, because I know the POWER.

In Love, Sister Denise

That’s a whole lot of caps lock. I wondered at first if it was a secret code.

What’s obviously most annoying about comments like these is that the comment does not actually address any of the arguments I make in my post. Denise’s goal was not a dialogue, but a soliloquy. This, alone, confirms my argument about selfishness, in that she is writing only to reinforce her own beliefs (and, I’m assuming, to perpetuate them).

Let’s see how it plays out.

PRAYER does work, but for only those that TRULY walk righteously. It is VERY FEW, but it is done. When you are in RIGHT standing, meaning, a sin free (unwicked) life you will have POWER to pray and see someone healed, lame walk and blind see. But the weakness and wickedness of human beings destroys their own ability to live as God intended.

This first chunk is committed to disparaging. She’s calling prayer-deniers naive. She’s calling the life I live wicked. And, like most evangelism, there’s some fear-mongering too.

Frankly, if God’s omnipotent, he should be able to make me live however he intends. And if I’m to be punished for exercising the free choice he gave me, then he’s selfish and cruel. Why would I want to ask him for anything? If what Sister Denise says here (“in love”) is true, then God’s an asshole.

God the creater and Jesus is ONE, and Jesus say if you except Him and keep HIS doing/saying/commandment like He did God the Father/Creator…the SAME power and MORE you could have. Humans and their doubts and DISOBEDIENCE keep that POWER from working in them so the world don’t see nor comprehend the TRUE POWER OF GOD.

Except him? No. I make no exceptions in my nonbelief.

Grammar and spelling errors aside, this still makes no sense. It sounds like she’s tempting me with power. That doesn’t sound very virtuous. It sounds like she wants the power too. Maybe she thinks she already has it? I would not sacrifice my basic language skills for this supposed power—I wonder if that’s the deal she made.

My brother, whether you want me to or not….God COMMANDED me to pray for you as I pray for myself….I WILL OBEY, because I know the POWER.

In Love, Sister Denise

So yeah, she cares more about her own belief in God than my personal wishes. She knows the POWER.

Great.

Now, there’s some woman out there who’s going to waste a couple minutes a day to use me as the target for reinforcing her own belief in the power of prayer.

I feel so affirmed.

Thanks for actually reading my post and thinking about what I had to say, Denise. I hope you’re pleased I returned the favor.

Possible presidential candidate Herman Cain called it a “breach of presidential duty bordering on treason.”

Newt Gingrich has called for Obama to be impeached.

Speaker Boehner expects the House GOPers will step in to defend it.

And plenty of folks all over the right are lying that the President is no longer enforcing DOMA, which he quite notably is.

All of this got me thinking about the very gradual approach—the long haul—toward LGBT equality. In the scheme of the movement, this DOMA decision was not that big. It was two years overdue. It doesn’t undo the damage done by the anti-LGBT DOMA briefs. It doesn’t even necessarily expedite federal recognition of same-sex couples.

If anything, the call for heightened scrutiny is a much bigger deal, but no one’s talking about that.

But this one little decision has spurred a deluge from the right. Treason? Impeachment? Loss of all credibility? All the big guns for just this one little policy change.

Where are our big guns?

We’ve been playing the very long, very patient high-road game. Step by step, we’ll get to equality eventually. But that’s not the way our opponents play the game at all.

They lambast. They overreact. They explode with rage and they attack! attack! attack!

Now am I applauding their strategy? Not necessarily. But I question ours a bit. I don’t want to start lying or exaggerating. But I want us to have some guts. I want us to be able to be pissed.

Our civil rights movement has been pretty posh. Sure, our elders are living in poverty, our kids are bullied and homeless, our trans community attempts suicide at 40x the national rate, and the HIV epidemic never really ended. But it’s the middle-class couples with jobs and children that are our biggest priority, right? We need marriage equality now!

When are we going to be pissed about how our community is actually treated in this society? When are we going to fight back? When are we going to call people out? When are we actually going to make a concerted stand?

I still feel like I haven’t seen it.

If anything, the National Equality March came closest. And it had a lot of potential to energize and motivate and utilize a whole lot of young people tired of injustice. And did anybody do anything with it? No.

Look, the President is hurting us slightly less on one of our issues! Hooray! We’re so grateful! You’re the best gay ally in presidential history! Whoopee!

Suddenly Bil and Pam come along wanting to air some dirty political laundry and everyone backs away. Oh no. We’re not that kind of a movement. We don’t call people out. We just raise lots of money for our elite lobbyists and then let them lobby. Lobby lobby lobby. That’s how we’ll get equality.

I can’t wait to see what Bil and Pam come up with. And I can’t wait to see the whole movement look and say, “Oh! Yeah! Look at the hypocrites!” and suddenly be on board with a little investigative research on our opponents. But in the meantime, are our relationships with the progressive movement so fragile and poor that any political boat-rocking is considered too big a risk? Three and a half minutes from Lawrence O’Donnell calling out some lies is our big guns? (Thanks for that much, Lawrence.)

We can’t do anything big if it isn’t a nice polished campaign with one of the big orgs’ logos on it, because of course, who gets the credit is more important than what gets accomplished. We can’t even agree on messaging. We’re all just doing our own thing and pretending it’s a cohesive movement with a realistic timeline. It’s no wonder it feels like a surprise every time a new state gets civil unions or whatever, because no one’s paying attention to what each other is doing!

We should care about education. We should care about helping every single American citizen understand the basic concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity. We should be quite proud of our morality and call out every hypocrite who tries to smear us “dirty homosexuals” but won’t acknowledge his own vita of adultery, divorce, and other abridgments of the “sanctity of marriage.” We should celebrate every victory, but each should make us more eager to demand the next, not less. We should be pissed every single time any politician or public figure smears us, and we should emphasize immediate movement-wide response (as opposed to, say, just waiting for GLAAD to deal with it).

But that’s not our movement. We aren’t transparent and we don’t work together. We don’t come with the big guns handy, and while for some of us these issues are our lives, our progressive allies think they’re doing us a big one by even mentioning our struggles. And we’re so thankful when they do; it’s a lot to ask of them.

This is insufficient.

If the right is going to make a big deal about every little step forward we take, it’s time we demand the left have the same reaction for every attempt at a little step backward. The stagnancy is stifling, and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the same patience as my very comfortable elders in the movement.

[The Friday Fundamentalist Farce File is a week's worth of "news" clippings from conservative hubs like WorldNetDaily and the American Family Association's OneNewsNow. Millions of Americans absorb these messages as gospel truth—literally—on a daily basis.]

There was a lot of good news this week, but what was the Right talking about? Abortion, Israel, teen sex, and Corporal Klingers (the latter, of course, to make fun of transgender people).

2/19/11 - Priest’s lawsuit threatens pro-life newssite

The problem with the language in the abortion debate has always been the strategic implication that anybody who is not “pro-life” is thus “pro-death” or “pro-abortion.” It looks like this characterization could lead to the shutdown of LifeSiteNews.com. The site is being sued for libel by Fr. Raymond Gravel, a pro-choice Roman Catholic priest and former member of Canada’s Parliament who didn’t appreciate being called “pro-abortion.”

And what is LSN’s response?

We are going to defend this case vigorously. We stand behind what we have written.

Of course, they’re also begging for money to fight the $500,000 suit.

2/20/11 - Israel: White House not reliable

The entire point of this article is to amplify the voice of one Knesset member who doesn’t like the Obama administration. It’s not really clear what authority he has to speak from, but WorldNetDaily is eager to quote every anti-Obama talking point he has to offer. Not much substance here, but worth noting that WND is trying to equate “pro-Israel” with “anti-Obama.” The evangelical Christians’ unflinching support of Israel (including Jewish settlement activity, as implied by this article) is incredibly suspicious.

2/21/11 - Healthcare conscience laws gutted

The expectation of the right is always that the freedom of religious belief equals the freedom of religious action, so the Christian Medical Association is very upset that the Obama administration has reduced the “conscience” protections for issuing birth control or “morning-after” pills. It’s just another whiny “we’re the victims” article, but the survey that comes with is good for a laugh:

2/22/11 - The joy of teen sex

Talking about people having sex is bad!

And Britain’s Channel 4 now has a show where young people above the age of consent are given tips to have better sex lives. Marcia Segelstein, author of this “Perspectives” piece, tells you what each of the four episodes is about, but then admits:

Perhaps fortunately, I was unable to view any of the episodes myself.

Despite being the “Reluctant Rebel,” Segelstein’s pure eyes probably could not have handled the actual portrayals of people having sex and using sex toys. It makes me sad for how boring and vanilla her own sex life might be.

Of course, her big problem is that anyone has sex outside of marriage. I say, if people are having sex outside of marriage, it might as well be safe, and good.

2/23/11 - Obama to create Armed Forces full of Corporal Klingers?

You may remember Corporal (later Sergeant ) Klinger from M*A*S*H who often wore women’s clothes to try to get himself a psychiatric discharge from the army. This reference has nothing to do with this article.

The article is about activists’ challenge to President Obama to end discrimination against transgender and intersex people in the military, but of course, the article uses as much offensive language as possible. (What is a “she-male,” and does anybody actually identify as one? Oh! The article later clarifies that it’s trans women who don’t fully transition. That doesn’t make it less offensive, and it sure doesn’t mean that anybody self-identifies that way.)

After a pity party for a wounded veteran, Elaine Donnelly is there to ask as many offensive questions as she can, displaying a complete lack of knowledge about transgender people. I provide my own (easy) answers below.

Q: Will recruiters be required to induct transgendered [sic] persons or individuals who desire “gender reassignment” treatment and surgery? If not, what would the rationale be?

Yes. To not induct transgender individuals because they wish to pursue SRS would constitute discrimination.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to uniform differences, exceptions, or alterations for men transitioning to female appearance and women transitioning to male appearance?

Individuals will wear uniforms that match the gender with which they identify.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to military medical services and medications for transgendered [sic] personnel, to include hormone treatments and surgery to change sexual appearance and identity for personnel seeking gender “re-assignment?”

The military should provide medical benefits equitably to all troops.

Q: What is the estimated annual cost of providing such services to transgendered personnel and those seeking gender “re-assignment?”

It shouldn’t matter. The military should provide medical benefits equitably to all troops.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to the housing of transgendered biological males living with females, and vice versa?

Individuals will be housed with the gender with which they identify.

Q: Will a man who shows up for duty in a regulation female uniform, or a woman in a man’s uniform, be considered appropriately dressed? What would be the rationale for denying that opportunity on an equal basis to male and female cross-dressers or transgenders?

For better or worse, GID is diagnosed. It should not be difficult to differentiate people actually transitioning from people being obnoxious. This assumes, of course, that military psychologists are not biased against trans people.

Q: Will the military services allow a man to wear only approved male garb on-base, but female dress off-base? If so, how does this affect the principle that military regulations apply both on-base and off-base, 24/7?

It should not be hard to enforce that individuals dress according to the gender with which they identify anytime such enforcement is in effect.

Q: Will the military services allow LGBT individuals or couples to participate in social events dressed in ways that reflect their sexuality, in the same way that women dress to please men?

Wow, I don’t even know where to start. There is so much inherently wrong here. First, the assumption that “women dress to please men.” Second, the assumption that dress is related to sexuality. This question is so absurd as to not warrant an answer.

Let’s be clear, readers. The thing that scares the religious right most is people cross-dressing.

2/24/11 - Christian churches welcoming Muslim worship?

It can sometimes be fun to watch in-fighting, but I found this article to be sad. It’s Christians attacking Christians for being inclusive. A couple Protestant churches were letting Muslim groups use their facilities, not having any of their own. Alan Wisdom at The Institute on Religion & Democracy (whatever that is) is offended that they would be so charitable.

While Wisdom believes it is important for Christians to reach out and share the gospel with Muslims, he concludes that church congregations should never allow their buildings to be used for religious practices that oppose Christian teachings.

I say kudos to the churches who are trying to build bridges, not destroy them.

2/25/11 - Duplicity revealed in DOMA decision?

Just in case you need a little more Elaine Donnelly in your life. She’s pissed because Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA throws the whole DADT repeal into question.

If DOMA isn’t defended, the military might have to let same-sex couples live together! And they might have to get benefits too.

How horrid.

Nothing warms the cockles of my heart like arguing that equality is not cost-effective.

Zack’s sick and Peterson’s been busy, so this week’s episode isn’t exactly coherent. The most recent Glee episode gives us plenty to talk about, including bisexuality and anti-gay violence. Plus, there’s that whole Lady Gaga and Target thing. We also honor the passing of a local LGBT activist with the poem that was used in her 1993 wedding program. The episode isn’t over without appearances from Rev. Dr. Meadows and Marvin Bloom. There’s something for everyone in this episode!

Apologies for some of the audio quality; we have some kinks to work out when we use Skype to record like we did today. Kinks don’t scare us in the least.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s poem honors Fran McDaniel (1943–2011). It’s XIII from Adrienne Rich’s 21 Love Poems.

» Watch this week’s Glee: Blame It On the Alcohol.

» Learn more about Lady Gaga’s efforts to make Target more LGBT-friendly.

Obviously, yesterday’s announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer defend (Section 3 of) the Defense of Marriage Act is a good thing, as was making the case that sexual orientation deserves heightened scrutiny.

But this question has to be asked: Why now?

Why did we have to endure two years of the defense of DOMA? Why did we have to endure comparisons to incest and child rape?

It’s important to remember that yesterday’s decision was a change in policy. That I noticed, it did not include an apology for the previous policy.

Likewise, the Department of Justice is going to continue to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this week. Even though training has already begun to implement repeal, the Log Cabin Republicans’ case is proceeding since repeal is still months from certification. What arguments will the Department of Justice use to defend the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell if, at the same time, it’s suggesting heightened scrutiny for DOMA?

I want to give President Obama credit for this change, I really do. But he still opposes same-sex marriage! That’s kind of a problem.

He could have done it for political reasons. It wins him some favor from the left and puts it to the right to deal with. Many have already noted the irony and hypocrisy of Speaker Boehner’s response. Given that his first order of business as Speaker of the House was to address a controversial social issue (defunding Planned Parenthood), it’s absurd that he would complain that the President is doing the same. If he or other Congressional Republicans tried to intervene in the defense of DOMA, it would be all the more obvious how disingenuous they are about their intentions.

So, I don’t know. I don’t have some grand point to make. There are a lot of folks who complain about people like me for always putting down the President and not giving credit where credit’s due. But if my rights are just being used as a political strategy and my equality isn’t really being favored, I guess I just feel like I have to call that out.

Am I a sourpuss for being skeptical?

1. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have indicated today that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, adding that sexual orientation should be given heightened scrutiny. It’s not entirely clear yet exactly what impact this will have on the cases already proceeding. For an understanding of why they’re only not defending Section 3 of DOMA, read Adam Serwer’s post.

Of course, conservatives are up in arms, including NOM, Matt Barber, and Peter LaBarbera. Joe Jervis points out that the homocons have not yet responded.

On a related note, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced in response that she will introduce legislation to finally repeal DOMA.

2. Meanwhile, in California, the American Foundation for Equal Rights has demanded that the U.S. Court of Appeals lift the stay on Judge Walker’s decision and allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to take on the question of standing adds excessive delays to the process. Said Ted Olson:

We are respectfully asking the Court to lift its stay on marriage for gay and lesbian couples because it has become apparent that the legal process is taking considerably longer than could reasonably have been anticipated. It’s important to remember that the stay was originally ordered with the understanding that the Ninth Circuit would rule swiftly on the case before it. Now that the issue of the Proponents’ standing to appeal has been referred for analysis by the California Supreme Court, substantial additional, indefinite and unanticipated delays lie ahead. It’s unreasonable and decidedly unjust to expect California’s gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory is debated further.

3. In Maryland there is movement forward on marriage equality, as the Maryland Senate voted favorably for a second (of three) on a bill for marriage equality.

4. However, in Iowa, conservatives are tapping into every last resort to try to limit same-sex marriage there. The latest scheme is to try to use a provision in the Iowa Constitution that skips judicial review in order to prohibit county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Apparently, banning same-sex marriage is more important to some Republicans than checks and balances.

5. A marriage amendment bill has been filed in North Carolina, and Pam Spaulding says, “Game on.” Like Bil Browning is doing in Indiana, Pam is ready to expose the hypocrites by publicizing divorcees, adulterers, closet-cases, and financial benefactors among the proponents of this anti-gay bill. If you have any insights, pass them along to Pam.

6. BONUS: Before the day is over, the governor of Hawaii will sign civil unions into law!

Maryland, Hawaii, DOMA… an important day of steps forward.

I found a couple comments in the Spam filter that shouldn’t have been there, but they have been restored (Patrick here and John here; thanks to John for bringing this issue to my attention).

So, from now on, the “I’m a real person! (Make sure this is checked!” is gone! You won’t have to complete a CAPTCHA unless the spam filter has a hunch that your post IS spam. Complete it and your comment will be posted.

Let me re-extend my invitation to discuss the posts! Also, if you post something on Facebook or Twitter, drop a line and let me know what your friends thought of it!

One other tip to avoid ever facing this problem. You can register with the site! It’ll remember your info every time always recognize you as real person. Use the Meta Menu at the far bottom of the right sidebar to Register and then Log In. You can stay logged in for weeks at a time and change how your Name and Website display anytime.

Again, sorry for the problems! I hope ya’ll keep on commenting!

[Note: I still won't be accepting comments from a certain troll who uses pseudonyms and fake emails to leave antagonistic comments. Seriously, what is your problem? Find something better to do with your life than creeping a blogger all the time.]

I’m a little under the weather today, so if you’re looking for some content to absorb, you should watch the following two short films. The first is sweet and the second funny. Then, if you still need more content to absorb, go catch up on Queer and Queerer!

One on One:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bFeSxNiWkY

Y2GAY:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXmTbCT1b5U

athiest can go to hell

Matthew Laws, whose email address includes the word “skinhead,” offered these five words of brilliance, and I’m going to leave the comment up, but offer this reply.

I am amazed that in just five words, Matthew Laws was able to communicate a spelling error, a grammatical error, and a message that is factually inaccurate.

First of all, it’s atheist, not athiest. The “EE” comes before the “ist.”

Second of all, it ought to be plural; otherwise, specify which one atheist you think can go to hell.

Lastly, it wouldn’t matter which atheist, because atheists can’t go to hell. We just can’t. You have to believe in hell to get there.

I will not go to hell. You can’t make me go to hell. You can’t convince me I’ll go to hell. You can never prove to others that I went to hell.

There is no hell. (And boy is my life a whole lot more pleasant with that knowledge.)

So, this comment seems a grand way to demonstrate how little people know about atheists. Thanks, Matthew Laws. You’re a testament to skinheads everywhere.

The opening plenary of Creating Change 2011 bridged the main conference with its subconference, Practice Spirit, Do Justice. Entitled “Hard work for our common good,” the panel featured four religious leaders with prepared statements: Bishop Yvette Flunder (City of Refuge/UCC), Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (MCC), Rabbi Joshua Lesser, and Faisal Alam, a Muslim leader.

And while I was prepared for many faith-centric messages, I was not prepared for how erased and marginalized I would feel on the very first day of the conference. Most of the 25 who joined the atheist caucus the following evening expressed similar concerns, as did many CC veterans who could not attend but followed along on Twitter.

As an obvious start, the opening panel did not feature a Humanist, Unitarian, or nonbeliever who could speak for the experiences of those who do not identify with faith. Arguably, plenty of other worldviews also went unrepresented as well. But the language that was used, particularly by Rev. Wilson and Bishop Flunder, not so subtly erased nonbelievers from the LGBT community and movement. And while atheists and agnostics were acknowledged a time or two, we were not represented nor affirmed by the supposedly interfaith panel.

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel opened the session by declaring, “This is where we are as a movement,” celebrating that a panel of faith leaders were opening the conference. Both Rev. Wilson and Rabbi Lesser spoke to the way the LGBT movement has excluded or dismissed faith communities in the past. And then Bishop Flunder pronounced the following:

I’d like to lift up tonight the presence of faith and deep spirituality as the underpinning if most, if not all real, authentic civil rights movements. I believe that the power to endure and be courageous amid continual physical, emotional, and spiritual attack must come from a deep well that is continually filled by the divine of our understanding.

She later invoked the prophet Paul, reminding us, “If God be for us, who would dare be against us,” and then declared “We will get our God back!”

Rev. Wilson added in her follow-up remarks that “Activism, to be sustained, requires faith of some kind, maybe not religious or spiritual, but some kind of sustaining faith.” This was her introduction to her hopes for the nonreligious and religious to work together.

These are just a few of the examples of language that left me incredibly triggered, excluded from the movement and the community. I left the session taking not much else with me. I’m glad the entire video is online, because upon relistening, I found a lot of important and powerful ideas that I could respect and appreciate. I implore you: take 45 minutes and listen for yourself. And yet, the panel still makes me feel incredibly invisible, like I am not welcome to be a part of this movement—that because I do not identify with faith of any kind, I have nothing to contribute towards our queer liberation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXXfcwJm2zo

The atheist/nonbeliever caucus was a remarkable experience. Not everyone there identified with the a-word. There were Humanists, agnostics, and even some folks of varying degrees of spirituality. But we weren’t there to argue over vocabulary semantics; we were there to affirm each other. And one of the qualities that united most of the 25 individuals in the room was that it was the first time in their lives that they were in a room with that many other nonbelievers and the first time in their lives that they felt affirmed to come out and commune with their fellow nonbelievers.

I had proposed the caucus because I knew there was a need. I had no idea the need was so great.

Historically, there had been visibility for atheists in conferences past, but it has been many years since that was the case. If this year’s atheist caucus was any indication, we are overdue to reverse the trend of that invisibility.

The room was alive and abuzz! We committed most of the hour to creating space for each individual to speak and be affirmed. We could have easily communed and discussed issues for four or more.

In the course of the discussion, we agreed that Practice Spirit, Do Justice was not particularly welcoming or affirming for us. We also acknowledged that the intensity of faith at this year’s conference was likely unique, as Minneapolis is where The Task Force’s faith arm, The Institute for Welcome Resources, operates. Most importantly, everyone was energized to create additional inclusive spaces for atheists in future conferences.

And while I’m committed to that, I also put forth a challenge here and now to the organizers of the conference at large to create a more inclusive space for nonbelievers. Creating Change has been very proactive about offering suggestions for language use regarding other dimensions of identity, including race, gender identity, and ability. It’s time that these efforts be updated to create a truly interfaith space that does not exclude and erase nonbelievers.

In his book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Greg Epstein offers the following suggestions for fully including Humanists and Atheists in interfaith spaces:

Don’t ask, “Can you be good without God?”

Do ask why we are motivated to be good, or to work with you.

Don’t proselytize to atheists in an interfaith context.

I hope readers can see how some of the assertions made during the plenary about the role of faith in the movement left out the motivations and experiences of those who do not identify with faith.

Do reach out specifically to atheist, secular, and Humanist groups and solicit their participation.

This has not been standard practice for Creating Change. Had I not proactively proposed the atheist caucus, there would have been no actual affirmation of nonbelievers’ contributions to the conference aside from lip service.

Don’t advertise interfaith events as for the religious only or as a way for everyone to unite, despite theological differences, around belief in God.

Practice Spirit, Do Justice and its overwhelming intersections with the conference at large clearly ran into this problem.

Do advertise as religiously pluralistic, including all religions as well as atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and the nonreligious.

To its credit, Creating Change does acknowledge nonbelievers as part of its community.

Use inclusive language: In addition to including us on your usual flyers, posters, or recruiting emails as above, try a special poster or e-mail emphasizing that interfaith includes the nonreligious too.

Include us in programs.

Learn and teach about us.

I was encouraged privately to propose atheist-centered workshops (such as an “Atheist 101″ workshop) as part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track, but I will confess that I did not truly feel welcome to do so. This may very well have been a failing on my part, and an opportunity I regret not seizing.

It is an interesting sort of personal irony I recognize.  I wish to counteract the lack of affirmation for nonbelievers, but it’s the very lack of affirmation that inhibits me from taking too bold a step.

Still, there were individuals at our caucus who told me that I was a trailblazer, a compliment I don’t think I earned by simply creating one space. Clearly the work needs to be done, and I do feel affirmed to step up and be a leader for this community of overlapping identities.

Rev. Wilson said, “You need us to beat their agenda.” Bishop Flunder repeated several times that negative religious messages need to be met with positive religious messages. I don’t disagree with either sentiment. Still, our commitment to reclaiming faith for LGBT people should not abandon those who seek not to reclaim faith and who are perhaps quite eager to challenge it. There is a boisterous atheist community chock full of LGBT allies who are just waiting to be invited to the table.

I hope Creating Change 2012 is where we can finally make that invitation and create a balanced space that celebrates all worldviews and lifestances, from the most spiritual to the least. It is certainly my commitment to step up and make it so.