The case, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States was decided by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. She ruled that DADT violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as servicemembers’ First Amendment rights. The law does not further government interests, nor does it support military readiness or unit cohesion (in fact, it undermines those interests). One of the most damning pieces of evidence was the fact that discharges were often delayed for servicemembers deployed in combat zones until they returned.

Let me say that again: the court found that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hurts military readiness and cohesion.

In regards to the First Amendment, DADT discriminates on the basis of content of speech. It doesn’t prohibit troops from discussing sexuality or sexual orientation, but unfairly targets servicemembers who are not heterosexual.

This was a facial challenge, which is quite different from an as-applied challenge. Rather than addressing the constitutionality for specific individuals, it challenges the constitutionality for everybody. This means that the effect of the opinion (or its appeal) would apply to the entire country, not just the 9th Circuit (unlike the Prop 8 ruling).

Judge Phillips has not yet entered the judgment. She gave a week to LCR to submit their own proposed judgment (September 16), and then the government has a week to object.

At that time, she could put the judgment into immediate effect, stay it indefinitely until an appeal is heard, or stay it temporarily until the Circuit Court of Appeals has time to offer their own stay (as Judge Walker did in Perry v. Schwarzenegger). President Obama’s Department of Justice is now stuck with the decision of whether to continue defending two different LGBT-related decisions, the DOMA cases in Massachusetts and now this DADT decision.

The interesting discussion at this point is how this decision will affect the Senate, who have not yet voted on the weak DADT compromise. Judge Phillips offered her own perspective that the compromise is so weak that the likelihood it would lead to repeal is “remote, if not wholly speculative.” Whatever the repeal compromise does, it does not end the discharges.

For more in-depth analysis of the decision, I recommend Igor Volsky at Think Progress’s Wonk Room, Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly, and Keen News Service.

The Prop 8 Trial Tracker is collecting responses from news sources like Rachel Maddow and CNN, as well as various organization representatives.

Jarrod Chlapowski of Servicemembers United has tips for next steps.

Here’s the full decision:DADT — US District, virginia phillips

Have a great weekend, everybody! Enjoy this wonderful news for our community!

Zack talked about atheism with Marvin back in Episode 6, and now it’s Peterson’s turn to talk about faith as a Christian and a Quaker. Then, the two delve into the muck in this extended episode! The Zack-Peterson rapport’s gotten particularly spicy! In this exciting discussion, Zack challenges Peterson about faith and Peterson challenges Zack about his (lack of) faith. Of course it goes unresolved… to be continued another day. Share your own thoughts about faith on the Queer and Queerer post or on the Queer and Queerer Facebook page!

As predicted, the protesters from the ENDA sit-in I reported on earlier today have been arrested upon the closing of the office. I’ll post another update when we have details about the arrest and processing. Here are photos:

In addition to a day-long phone swarm (get all the details here and make your call now!), a sit-in is currently underway in Rep. Carney’s Williamsport Office. The secretary in the office is an out lesbian herself and has been sympathetic with the protesters. The police will only be called when the office closes today at 4:30. In the meantime, the protesters are chanting for equality and singing “We Shall Not Be Moved” and “We Shall Overcome” while calls from the phone swarm continue to pour in. Rep. Carney is currently on active duty at Langley Air Force base and will likely not respond today. Below is the press release from GetEQUAL as well as exclusive photos from the sit-in.

*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Activists Tell Carney to Stop Only Worrying About His Job and Worry About his Constituents, Too*

*Williamsport, PA *–GetEQUAL, a direct action lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization and Justice League-Activate!, a Pennsylvania based LGBT equality group, is holding a protest this morning targeting Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) for his continued vote against the rights of his lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender constituents.  The non-violent, civil disobedient action was carried out at 10 a.m. (ET) this morning at Rep. Carney’s congressional district office in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, asking him to sign a pledge to vote in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  ENDA is a piece of federal legislation that would make it illegal to hire, fire or refuse to promote LGBT workers simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees can be fired from their jobs in 29 states, and transgender or gender-nonconforming employees can be fired in 38 states.

Rep. Chris Carney has a long record of voting against his LGBT constituents.  In 2009, he voted against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act and this year voted against the Murphy Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act – more commonly known as the compromise legislation to begin the process to repeal the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Additionally, this year Rep. Carney has made it known that his intent is to vote against any Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill that would protect millions of hard-working, tax-paying LGBT workers – both in Pennsylvania and across the country.

“Rep. Carney has continued voting against protecting the jobs of millions of American workers simply for no other reason than because of who they are,” said Audrey Smith, co-founder of Pennsylvania based Justice League-Activate!.  “While Rep. Carney is out on the campaign trail worried about his own job, he continues to leave his LGBT constituents unprotected and without any form of federal employment protections.  Like all Americans, we are worried about our job security and Rep. Carney’s votes based on discrimination are completely unacceptable.  He needs to know that we Pennsylvanians expect him to protect OUR lives and jobs and not just his own!”

“GetEQUAL has promised that, as long as people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake, we will not stop standing up for those LGBT workers in dozens of states across this country without a voice, without any job security,” said Heather Cronk, managing director of GetEQUAL. “With the launch of our ‘ENDA Summer’ campaign, we told politicians that while they are back home campaigning to save their jobs, we intend on reminding them that their employment isn’t the only one on the line. Millions of LGBT workers punch a clock every single day unsure if today’s timecard could turn into tomorrow’s discriminatory pink slip. The time to pass ENDA is now.”

In addition to the action against Rep. Carney this morning, GetEQUAL, along with local advocates, has also targeted two members of the Democratic House Leadership this week demanding that they follow through on their promise to pass ENDA this year.  Last night, U.S. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) was targeted during a campaign debate.  Rep. Miller, nearly six months ago, promised that after healthcare legislation was passed that he’d move on ENDA.  Healthcare legislation passed the House on March 22nd, 2010.

Later today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be targeted to make good on her promise to pass ENDA legislation this year.  The act of civil disobedience will start with a rally in the historic Harvey Milk Plaza and proceed with shutting down traffic on Market and Castro streets in San Francisco, located in Speaker Pelosi’s own congressional district.

In mid-July of this year, GetEQUAL released a timeline showing years of broken promises and excuses from elected officials that have led to the stalling of any federal protections being in place for LGBT workers.  The timeline is available at www.getequal.org/endatimeline.

Click the images to see them full-size:

First, let me say that I’m never more amazed than the way people are able to selectively get riled about issues when it suits them. The same thing happened with South Park’s portrayal of Muhammad. They showed him in an episode in 2001 (just two months before 9/11) and no one cared, but then the Danish cartoons made a huge hullabaloo in 2005. Similarly, Shirley Phelps points out that her gang, the Westboro Baptist Church, had a Qur’an burning back in 2008. We only care about this one because we care about this one.

Burning the Qur’an. Is it offensive? Yes. Does it improperly blame all Muslims for the actions of Muslim extremists? Yes.

Okay, that’s it. It’s not like we’re in a Doctor Who episode and the burning of Qur’ans are going to permanently damage the timeline or destroy the universe or whatever. Book burnings have a pretty dark history; they hit us in the gut—I get that. But it’s not like Terry Jones has any expectation that he’s going to rid the world of all Qur’ans. He’s just doing it for the spectacle.

There’s something interesting about the public reaction to this. Terry Jones and his church clearly qualify as “extremists,” but we’re treating this like he’d be speaking on behalf of everybody. Of course, it only feels that way because of the way the mainstream media has elevated the coverage. It’s sort of like we’re saying that all Muslims are as naive as all anti-Muslim Americans. Many Americans have a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment because of the actions of a few Muslim extremists, and that feeds their fear that all Muslims will develop anti-American sentiment because of a few kooky extremists.

It’s all just kind of dumb.

If anything, his actions just support Qur’an publishers. He has to get them somewhere.

Let’s be honest, the Qur’an is not a respectable moral authority. Neither is the Bible. I can’t say I’d miss either if they were no longer around. I could go burn some Bibles, but all it would do is make people less interested in what I have to say because they’d be offended. I would gain nothing from it. Jones similarly gains nothing.

If lots of people care about Muslim sentiment, maybe they shouldn’t be so xenophobically opposed to them building a community center on privately owned property in New York City, or for that matter, building mosques anywhere in the US. But come on, people, don’t pretend to care about Muslims’ feelings in one state while you’re slapping them around in another. It makes me wonder how many people are just jealous that they can’t get away with burning Qur’ans themselves.

Burn a book. Burn a flag. It’s your right to protest. If you don’t like what others are doing, ignore it or counter-protest it, but don’t just sit around bringing lots of attention to it as if that alone is virtuous. It only amplifies the voice that you didn’t want heard in the first place. I’m with Hemant; I’d rather see some real courage.

Terry Jones acknowledged it’s intolerant. What else need be said?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqtrYRaeOTM

(By the way, this post is just me talking about myself, so if you’re here for news or commentary, sorry! But hey, I might end up saying something poignant about life—you never know.)

Year 25 was definitely unlike any previous year of my life. It was the first full year that I did not live my life according to prescription. There were the 18 years of grade school and the 6 of higher education, and then I got this wacky year where nothing was according to plan. What a good thing that was!

You know, I could easily bemoan the economy and the challenges of the job search, and certainly there are those out there eager to mock me for it. A full year has passed and you still don’t have a real job, Zack? Yeah, it’s true. Get over it. It’s actually been a great year, because I’ve had to find a way to make meaning of my life despite not fitting the mold I’d always had in my head for how it was supposed to progress.

It’s fun having a September birthday, because I can measure years of my life parallel to school years. This was my first non-school year (and hopefully my last). But the Fall still brought very important changes, because it was at the beginning of October when I launched the redesign of my blog. Two weeks later I was reporting from the National Equality March. Suddenly, I felt like I had a legitimate blog and I was connecting with other bloggers and activists who were excited about my work. It might not sound like much, but those changes really set the tone for the year that went on to include the Prop 8 Trial, Creating Change, working for the Central PA LGBT Center, developing the Queer and Queerer Podcast with Peterson, and Netroots Nation.

In some ways, it’s kind of felt like an intermission, but in other ways, it’s just been a refreshing break. I think we all need to take time to explore life and find ourselves in spite of what anyone wants for us. Heck, it wasn’t what I wanted for myself, but I definitely have no regrets!

In addition to being a test of creativity in the absence of structure, it was also a test of resiliency. If you had asked me on September 8, 2009 if I would still be confident and optimistic if a year later I still didn’t have a job that put my degree to use, I probably wouldn’t have been thrilled with speculating. But here I am, and I have so much work to be proud of, even if I’m not “on track.”

Truly, we spend our whole lives reconciling who we are against who others want us to be. In any of these struggles, we come out (often literally) stronger because we believed in ourselves. I can look back on year 25 as a year of transition, but a year in which I stayed true to myself in spite of circumstance. And now I can look forward to a new quarter-century with a piece of myself that I never would have known I had.

Cheers to you my friends and readers, and everyone who has been a part of my life! Cheers to life! Cheers to making it work!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch0BALz2wnE

I’ve noticed that the memes ebb and flow, and lately a few memes have reemerged as quite prominent talking points, particularly among Tea Party conservatives around race. In an attempt to reject accusations of racism, conservative leaders like Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah of World Net Daily have embraced an addictive new blend of the “Reverse Discrimination“, “Colorblind,” and “Friend/Expert” memes that only accentuates their white privilege.

It looks like this: You call us racist? We support all people, and the proof is that people of color stand with us. We are the ones under attack by your false accusations! You’re the racists.

Two weeks ago, I got an email from Joseph Farah entitled, “Have Dems re-enslaved blacks?” He quoted Kevin Jackson of the Black Conservative Coalition defending the Tea Party, claiming that reducing the size of government would amount to “another Emancipation Proclamation” and “This time, even the white folks get freed.”

Farah goes onto say that affirmative action has hurt blacks because their promotions no longer have to do with merit “welfare-style redistribution schemes” have hurt blacks by creating greater dependency and less self-reliance; and that all of the accusations of racism demonstrate that the word is losing its power and meaning.

Essentially, he’s trying to blame the left for racism. He wants the black community to see conservatives as allies but wants the white conservatives to feel like the real victims because of how their precious money has been wasted. After you make sense of his motives, his words become that much more obvious:

In many ways today the black community is less functional than it was during the worst days of the Jim Crow era. Back then, the family structure – the very building block of community – was still intact. Today, the white family is disintegrating the way the black family did following the manipulations of paternalistic government policies.

In effect, it seems, the Democrats, “progressives” and leftists are trying to put whites in bondage to them and government the way they re-enslaved blacks.

It’s absurd, and of course he’s still hawking that preposterous “Negrophilia” book I wrote about before, which is the epitome of the Expert meme: a black man making money off the black community by throwing them under the bus for the rich whites.

Last week, I got a promotion for World Net Daily’s Whistleblower magazine, entitled “Obama and the New Racism.” Echoing Glenn Beck’s accusations of Obama’s racism, this magazine tests the limits of the Reverse Discrimination meme. The first nine words of the promo should be a huge red flag:

America – without question the least racist nation on earth – is witnessing an outrageous upsurge in hardcore racism during the administration of Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president.

Yeah. The United States set the bar high with its truth and reconciliation commissions. Blacks, Latinos, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans have full respect and equality, Central American immigrants are perfectly welcome, and Middle Easterners are just as free to worship anywhere as any other group. Right.

And Joseph Farah has no hesitation when it comes to showing that he has no clue what social justice is about:

Martin Luther King Jr., dreamed of a colorblind America.

Ummmm… no. That’s what white people who don’t want their white privilege called into question dream of.

Whistleblower’s editor, David Kupelian, really steps in it with an irony too genius even for him to see:

We’re witnessing today a textbook example of the rotten totalitarian tactic called,‘Accuse others of the evil you do.’ Thus, not only do the Obama administration and its media propagandists accuse good and decent Americans of being racists just because they object to having their country stolen. But those currently in power – in pursuit of the twisted Marxist notion of ‘social justice’ – have adopted an utterly racist modus operandi for running the affairs of the nation. This betrayal of the dream of Martin Luther King, and of all decent Americans, is a story that needs to be told.

They’re pissed that whites don’t have as much power as they used to, but that doesn’t make them racist! In case you weren’t sure, both Farah and Kupelian are quite white.

Glenn Beck recently “amended” his comment about Obama being racist; Beck now says that Obama practices “liberation theology.” Given how little Obama has actually talked about his own faith, this seems to be quite a stretch, and honestly just another codeword for “Marxist.” (At least liberation theology is Christian, not Muslim.)

Beck’s recent Restoring Honor rally showed just how prevalent the “Colorblind” and “Friend/Expert” memes are becoming. Much of the message of the day was sugar-coated in platitudes about freedom for all. Of course, you have a bunch of white people there to say something needs fixed restored, so it’s a tricky message to navigate. It helps them, though, to have folks like “Dr.” Alveda King there to disgrace the work and words of her uncle. A quisling if ever there were one, she gives the Tea Party a false sense of validation, just because they have one more black person speaking on their behalf. They never point out that all the black people who speak on their behalf (Alveda King, Kevin Jackson, Erik Rush, etc.) all make tons of money for what they say.

In fact, the few black people that show are celebrated at Tea Party events, because the white people are just that insecure that they might be racist. Take a look at this clip:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA7GvNYAVyY

At the end of the day, there are several serious problems with this approach. First, it’s white people saying they understand race relations better than anybody else. I’ll admit that I’m a white person talking about race, but I’m not trying to tell people of color what their experience is; I’m telling other white people how wrong they are. Second, it’s a painting of race as a white-black issue, ignoring all the inherent racism in the Tea Party’s immigration platform and libertarian politics in general. Third, it continues the distortion of white privilege and the enabling of real racism in our country.

The only way to counter this nonsense is with education. Privilege is not easy to understand nor can it even be fun to talk about. Nevertheless, we must try to make clear the hurt that Tea Party racism causes. I hope that my little Meme Collection can be helpful in this regard.

As far as I’m concerned, America is still one of the most racist countries on earth.

Sound familiar? That’s because a federal judge recently stated as a finding of fact that the very tactics FOTF is using are motivated by discrimination and animus. (See the Prop 8 Findings of Fact 44, 46, 58, 62, 67, 71, 76, and 77.) Autumn Sandeen has a great rundown of all the holes in Focus on the Family’s approach that you should definitely read in addition to this post.

As a result of this new campaign, CNN covered the “controversy” last week in the 11-minute segment below. I think this report from Anderson Cooper is demonstrative of the weak state of mainstream media coverage and the real damage that CNN’s “equal time” philosophy does to our community. In fact, I’m going to make the case to you in this post that Cooper is actually enabling FOTF throughout the whole interview. This is a sad reminder of how little support we get from having a gay man as one of the mainstream media’s most popular anchors. Get it buffering and I’ll walk you through this disaster of fact-finding.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUXkY5ejJg8

The opening of the segment is deceptive. AC is talking to us about kids who commit suicide because they were harassed for acting gay. We also get to see Carl Walker-Hoover’s mother testifying before Congress. This is powerful because 1) it shows us how serious a concern anti-gay bullying is and 2) it reminds us that lots of straight kids are hurt by this kind of bullying. It’s a great opening to the segment, but you can forget about it, because it never comes up in the conversation. Not once.

In fact, the whole point of this segment is to put Focus on the Family’s point of view on a pedestal. It’s not really a controversy; it’s just an extremist group voicing their same-old dissent based on their same-old beliefs. And no journalism is taking place here, because there is no scrutiny. It’s just sensationalism. It’s 11 minutes of television that amplify the dissenting voice without offering any critical analysis. Focus on the Family is not held to any accountability for what they say or believe.

In addition to being poor journalism, it’s also an upholding of religious privilege. It’s the respect meme, the foundation of all religious belief. We have to respect the beliefs and that’s that. Why? If we ever find out, it sure won’t be from CNN. I’m going to give you a blow-by-blow, because I want you to see how much Anderson Cooper protects Focus on the Family throughout the discussion. I’ll sum it up at the end so you can see how bad it is.

AC segues to the discussion (1:26) by saying (paraphrased for effect), Here’s what the Safe Schools Improvement Act would do, but Focus on the Family objects, so let’s hear them out! So we meet the players. Candi Cushman is FOTF’s talking head, while Eliza Byard speaks for GLSEN, and Rosalind Wiseman, who wrote the book that inspired Mean Girls, is there for color commentary. You’ll note that Cooper stumbles over both of the latter two ladies’ names. Then, AC gives Cushman the first word (1:54). This sets up Focus on the Family to take the offense and make their case first, meaning the other two will be stuck playing defense most of the interview.

Cooper sets up his first question by paraphrasing FOTF’s policy in his own words (thus validating it with his authority as a respected reporter) and then asking the following about anti-gay bullying (2:13):

How do you suggest stopping that if you can’t mention anything about gays and lesbians?

This question is terribly weak, and kind of stupid when you think about it. It gives FOTF’s point of view the benefit of the doubt, when there is actually plenty to be doubtful about! It doesn’t really scrutinize their stance at all, though Autumn will be the first to show you there is plenty to scrutinize.

After Cushman spews her nonsense about wanting “to protect any child for any reason” as a cover for just not talking about gays, Cooper pushes her, but not in any way that challenges what she has said, merely to help her further clarify her point of view. It’s not so hard to watch it and perceive it as if he’s actually helping her get it all out. It’s odd to see it in that light, but that’s the effect of his “pushing.” This is most evident around 3:20 when Cushman gets out her other talking point about “not focusing on the characteristics of the person victim because it doesn’t matter why the victim was targeted. “

Now (at 3:30), Cooper puts this on Byard of GLSEN. He says that FOTF has challenged GLSEN of “promoting the gay agenda” as if 1) FOTF is a respectable authority on gay issues (though the Southern Poverty Law Center says otherwise) and 2) the “gay agenda” is a real thing, a legitimate threat, and something GLSEN has to answer for. This is quite different from a moment ago when he uncritically reiterating FOTF’s stance. What gives?

Byard is great, though. She points out that the Safe Schools bill does everything Cushman wants plus pays special attention to specific characteristics because the data shows it makes a difference. This frames the argument well, because it shows that FOTF wants to do less than is possible and that there is data to show why they’re wrong in wanting that.

What does Cooper do? He ignores this point with another weak question for Cushman (4:20), designed to be perceived as a challenge without echoing the legitimate points Byard just made. He asks if FOTF would be opposed to talk about race, disability, or other traits that kids might get bullied for. This isn’t an awful question, but it protects Cushman from having to respond to Byard (and Byard’s data).

What’s most pathetic here is that Cushman dodges the question anyway. She says she’s worried if you start specifying kinds of bullying, you might end up leaving some kids out. I’m sure she prefers not talking about any of the Presidents specifically in U.S. History because if you spend too much time on Washington and Jefferson you might leave out Millard Fillmore.

Then, after plugging the True Tolerance website, she whips out the old parents-who-are-concerned-about-”homosexuality lessons presented to their kindergartners” nonsense, playing on age-old stereotypes of fear. The implication here is that kids will be taught to be gay and that that’s a bad thing. It’s exactly what Dr. Chauncey testified about in the Prop 8 trial. It’s bunk. But hey, FOTF doesn’t “think it’s necessary,” so that’s enough for a controversy.

Cooper almost doesn’t challenge Cushman, but let’s Byard jump in (5:26) and reiterate the data-driven facts about the importance of mentioning sexual orientation in anti-bullying education. She is calm and eloquent in her presentation of GLSEN’s work. Does Cooper follow-up on the facts? No, he jumps over to get Wiseman in the conversation (6:06).

Again, he shows favor with FOTF by asking “Do you see an agenda being spread?” as if Byard hadn’t just clarified what GLSEN does and has found through multiple studies. Wiseman kind of throws the whole mess under the bus by claiming you’ll only get a 45-minute assembly out of the initiative, and then oddly echoes Cushman’s talking points (about all students) to agree with Byard’s points (naming the behavior). I think she actually says something worthwhile at some point about homophobia and masculinity that could’ve been brilliant, but it’s generally lost in her meanderings.

So what does Cooper do? Invite Cushman to talk freely again about what Focus on the Family believes, of course (7:30)! Cushman goes on again about wanting to defend the gay kid without actually defending him for being gay. Her “they’re all God’s children” is just a repackaging of color-blindness for sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter that the kid’s gay, just protect him for being a kid. (Of course, by not validating the kid’s identity, the teacher would essentially be validating the anti-gay bullying. That couldn’t possibly be what FOTF wants, could it? Oh wait, yes it could.)

Now, kudos to Wiseman for jumping in here and calling out Cushman (8:08) that her perspective “does not in any way reflect the reality of what schools are like.” She makes up for her earlier incoherence with a very coherent smackdown, suggesting Cushman is oblivious to “concrete reality.”

How does AC respond to this outburst? He challenges Wiseman by reiterating FOTF’s language and saying, “What’s wrong with just that?” Now, some might say he’s just facilitating the discussion without personally taking a point of view, but he is taking a point of view. He’s offering a defense of what Focus on the Family is trying to say! Wiseman (8:50) offers a weak explanation for respecting victims at their word but is about as ambiguous in her words as the ambiguity she’s trying to describe.

Cooper then comes back to challenge GLSEN’s Byard again! (9:30):

There are certainly a lot of parents who don’t believe that being gay or being lesbian is okay and don’t want their kids—especially very young kids—exposed to that. Do you think this should be mandatory for everybody?

He’s essentially agreeing that teaching kids that some of their friends might have two mommies or two daddies might be an awful thing. He’s also validating their scare tactics—you know, the ones that demonize gay people… like Anderson Cooper.

Byard gives another eloquent response (9:43). She talks about data, findings, evidence, and facts. After she’s finished, Cooper ignores what she has said (again) to give Cushman the final word (10:25). Cushman talks about scared parents and sexual content again, but is again left unchallenged with her foundationless, stereotype-driven, fear-baiting tactics. Cooper thanks them and ends the discussion.

Now, let’s review everything Anderson Cooper, star gay journalist, did in this segment:

» He opens the segment by talking about bully-driven suicides (which he never refers to again).
» 1:26 -- He introduces Focus on the Family’s concern about the Safe Schools Improvement Act as reason enough to talk about it for a full segment.
» 1:36 -- He welcomes the guests, happening to stumble over the names of the two guests who will disagree with Focus on the Family.
» 1:54 -- He reiterates FOTF’s position and then lets their spokesperson, Candi Cushman, speak first.
» 2:41 -- He pushes Cushman to further clarify her position.
» 3:30 -- He challenges GLSEN’s spokesperson, Eliza Byard, to refute the “gay agenda.”
» 4:20 -- He ignores Byard’s points to throw another easy question at Cushman.
» 5:26 -- He almost lets Cushman go unchallenged but lets Byard jump in.
» 6:06 -- He again ignores Byard’s points, bringing author Rosalind Wiseman into the conversation by also challenging her about the “gay agenda.”
» 7:30 -- He throws another easy question to Cushman.
» 8:27 -- He responds to Wiseman’s retort of Cushman by reiterating FOTF’s points and challenging her to refute them.
» 9:30 -- He reiterates another FOTF talking point to Byard, challenging her to defend them.
» 10:25 -- He gives Cushman the last word, again without challenging her on anything.

Essentially, he protects Focus on the Family the entire segment. The segment, itself, exists solely to amplify and validate their message. They are held to no scrutiny. In just 11 minutes, two completely unequal points of view are conflated through “equal time” to having equal footing. It’s a massacre of knowledge, and a complete journalistic failing.

Now, you might have read all that and said, “Yeah, but he was just facilitating, and this is just one segment, and Zack, you’re just making a big deal out of nothing.”

No. You’re wrong. CNN does this all the time. Tony Perkins is an AC360 contributor and Maggie Gallagher is also on there all the time. They make news about Bryan Fischer’s extremist statements then give him airtime. They refer to ex-gay therapists like Richard Cohen and Exodus International. And every time, they pull this “equal time” crap that ends up validating the side that has no footing. There is no scrutiny. There is no journalistic integrity.

I’ll stop just short of calling Anderson Cooper a quisling. It’s a shame he cares more about how CNN wants him to do his job than his own community. But CNN has a neutrality suppository so far up its butt that it doesn’t know right from wrong. We need to start holding them to a higher standard. This talk show sensationalism is hurting our community. Let’s not let them call it journalism any more.

Now, all you Mac-folks can point and laugh. I’m not becoming a Mac. Your OS has advantages and disadvantages as does mine. You have preferences and so do I. Would you have gotten this glitch? Probably not. That alone does not make your OS superior. I would rather have to deal with an occasional glitch than a proprietary company that censors the content I can access.

Though the past few days have been stressful, I can say this about the process:

» I was able to fix the problem myself (i.e. I didn’t have to send it away).

» It didn’t cost me a penny to fix.

» I didn’t lose anything.

» My computer is running more smoothly now as a result of the maintenance I ran on it.

So, I’m all good now, and will probably resume regular blogging after this holiday weekend.

I have to say, I was surprised at how much my mood was affected by the availability of my computer. I certainly have no trouble when I’m in situations where I know I won’t have access, but when I should have access and the tools I’m used to using aren’t serving me the way they should, I was rather distraught. I felt out of the loop, disconnected.

You know, there are a lot of people who believe in some higher connectedness or consciousness. I think anything ethereal is preposterous. But, I do think that the internet is reshaping the human consciousness in a very observable way. The way we relate to each other and the globalization of our society are quite marvelous, and I’m not sure we’ve all quite realized what an impact these changes have had on each of us as individuals.

At any rate, I’m back!

And here’s a tip for all you computer users out there: Just in case of whatever, back up your system!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoG4PlEPtY

Zack and Peterson work on mending their relationship after the Joe Gee debacle by discussing fundamentalist Christianity. Angela from Austria thinks that fundamentalist Christianity is a great way to absorb “non-thinkers” who might be recruited by more dangerous groups (like neo-Nazis). From the conversation that ensues, you almost wouldn’t know that Peterson’s a believer and Zack isn’t. ALSO, more lesbian movies coming your way!

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

» Click here to listen to Marvin Bloom on Dan Savage’s Podcast!

» Check out New Left Media’s videos from Tea Party events.

» Read more about the Pew Research Center study we discussed.

Here are more lesbian movie recommendations, courtesy of The Lesbian Mafia:

» Watching You (Short Films)
» The 10 Rules (Short)
» If These Walls Could Talk 2
» D.E.B.S.
» High Art
» The L Word (First Season)
» Imagine Me and You
» Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love
» My Summer of Love
» Girl Play
» Loving Anabelle
» Lost and Delirious
»  We Have To Stop Now (Seasons 1 & 2)
» Girl/Girl Scene (Web Series)
» Bound
» But I’m a Cheerleader
» Itty Bitty Titty Committee

» Lovers and Friends (Urban Web Series)
» I Can’t Think Straight
» The Ultimate Lesbian Short Film Festival
» Lesbian Nation
» Lesbian Sex & Sexuality
» Fingersmith
» Desert Hearts
» Amy and Jaguar

Who are Christians?

This drives me crazy, because it makes it hard to blog about Christians. It’s a word that means so many different things to so many people, and for some people, it’s the only word that describes them. In reality, there is nothing I can say to generalize Christians as a group except that they believe Jesus Christ is their savior, and in some cases, even that might not be true.

This makes it very hard to write about Christianity. There are a lot of Christians who say a lot on behalf of Christianity (or some vague sense of Judeo-Christianity), such as Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Rick Warren, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson. Glenn Beck certainly made it quite clear that his 8/28 rally was all about God (and I doubt he meant Allah). I take responsibility from time to time to call these people out (I quickly realized it was foolish to try to cover them all), and then I have to say, “This is what Christian leaders are saying.” There are surely many Christians who do not agree, but these individuals and their groups still unabashedly claim to speak on behalf of (all) Christians.

Catholicism doesn’t have this problem. It’s a specifically defined institution with a very clear hierarchy. And whether all followers buy into it or not, the Catholic Church has very clear specifications for who IS a Catholic and who ISN’T. And given that the Catholic Church is pretty regularly deciding what’s best for other people in a very public and powerful way (or demonizing gays as the scapegoat for all their internal problems), it’s not surprising I end up writing more about them. It becomes all too easy to point at Catholics and say, “Look at what your Church is doing. You realize you’re still supporting that?”

The Mormon Church is similar, but doesn’t face the same challenges. When you’re no longer a Mormon, the good folks at LDS make it quite clear. They’ve been surprisingly quiet since the Prop 8 mess, so there hasn’t been as much to say about them lately. Even when they are in the news, there’s little finger-pointing to be done. Mormons who go against their Church are excommunicated pretty expressly; they very much take accountability for their institution’s actions in ways many Catholics blithely avoid.

But then there are those Christians. There are Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals, Quakers, and Mennonites, to name a few. I’m usually not too interested in what each of those groups do internally, because I see no point in trying to change the nature of individual religions. My goal is just to diminish the obscene privileges they have in society. Given that atheism defines the purview of this blog, I don’t think my time would be well spent arguing whether there is one better way to worship God or another. As a recent example: I feel bad that Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr was rebuked by the Presbyterian Church for presiding over same-sex marriages, but I’m not going to write about it extensively here. While I do care about the visibility of pro-gay messages as an LGBT activist, I’m more concerned here on the blog with the volume of religious voices, regardless of their content. I want to dismantle religious privilege and disempower faith. To chime in regarding an internal religious debate would suggest I think one religious explanation has more intellectual merit than another, when my actual point of view is that they all are equally lacking.

And so I’m left to write about Christians who are trying to control or manipulate the lives of people beyond their Church walls. So often, there is no other moniker to describe who these people are. They are Christians. This summer alone, I’ve written about local Christian organizations trying to evangelize through church camp and VBS (here and here), I wrote about the Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law (here), I’ve responded to WorldNetDaily’s Christian evangelism to its followers (here and here), I’ve responded to groups who privilege Christian beliefs about LGBT people over the science like AFTAH (here) and NARTH (here), I’ve responded to Christian counselors who think they know best (here, here, and by the way, the second girl also lost), and I also responded to a Christian evangelist who commented on the blog (here). I could have probably written even more, but Prop 8 and Netroots Nation swayed a lot of my focus toward LGBT activism. Still, I think I called out a lot of “Christians.”

If you, my reader, are a Christian, what should be your take-away? Many might say, “Well, I’m not that kind of Christian.” Great! I’m sure there are a ton of live-and-let-live Christians out there and even some who are very passionate allies of social justice. Unfortunately, there is a divide between the proactive and the reactive. In the United States, those who are proactive have a much louder megaphone, and arguably the most followers. These are the Christians who think it’s their mission to spread their faith and dictate that others abide by it. These are the individuals who claim that we are a “Christian Nation.” We’re talking about the AFA, FRC, WND, NOM, the Tea Party, and frankly the whole “religious right.” They define Christianity in this nation. They harness the privilege that religion has in our nation in ways no group ever has.

If you’re not that kind of Christian, I’m glad. But if you call yourself a Christian or you defend Christianity, know that those groups claim you and speak on your behalf. If you’re not happy with how they’ve defined what it means for you to be a Christian, you have a responsibility to stand up and correct them. As someone speaking out on the harm religion does to society, I cannot make exception for “all those other Christians” who don’t stand up for themselves when they are not pleased with what is said about Christianity. I’m not a Christian. It is that group of “Christians” who have to make an example of themselves.

This is one of many burdens Christians carry. Yes, you have an obligation to speak up for yourself and to repudiate and disavow those who try to define not just your faith but your place in society. I don’t care if you live in Washington, DC, or Coudersport, PA (I’m in probably a very small minority of Pennsylvanians who even know where Coudersport is); when people use your faith to foment their hate or discrimination, it is your responsibility to correct them, not mine. My job is simply to let you know that you’re still way behind.

On Facebook, I shared a blog post from indiemcemopants on Firedoglake called “The Closet is a Poison,” highlighting a passage I thought summed up the situation well:

In spite of the terror his philosophies inflicted on LGBT citizens and in spite of the decades long scare-fest of anti-gay hatred, gay-baiting and discriminatory laws foisted on us, Ken Mehlman wants us to know that his coming out experience has been just peachy. No apology for all the suicides his party’s stances inevitably brought on. No apology for hate crimes. No apology for the election campaign involving some of the worst anti-gay hatred anyone has ever witnessed. No apology for the terror LGB military people have had to endure. No apology for the forced rapes female soldiers went through to “prove” they are straight.

He just wants us to know that he’s been through a whole, whole lot and that he’s a very happy and well-adjusted person. Well Ken, fuck you.

An acquaintance of mine (who has been the covert long-term partner of a still-practicing gay Catholic military chaplain) implored me that this reaction was harsh, and had I no compassion for Mehlman’s struggle?

Do I have compassion for the struggle of coming out? Of course. That’s why I’ve committed my life to education and support for the LGBTQ community. But have I sympathy for Mehlman? Not really.

Why?, I was pushed. Is his struggle so different from anyone else’s? Why would you begrudge him? I could tell my acquaintance was speaking from a very personal place, given the decades of compassionate hiding he has done to make sure his partner is not outed to Church leadership. I explained to him that, much as for his partner who enables and promotes the Catholic Church’s messages of hate through his own self-hatred, I do have compassion, but it is not sympathy; it is pity.

I then asked my acquaintance whether he fully understood that Ken Mehlman was instrumental in coordinating Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign, in which same-sex marriage was used as a threatening wedge issue through a federal constitutional amendment as well as 11 state constitutional ballot initiatives. He did, but tried to repeat Mehlman’s own spin that he hadn’t figured out that part of his life by then.

So then I asked whether he was aware that Ken Melhman knew he was gay back in 2004? This was news to him. I said, oh yes! Mike Rogers started reporting it that year of that election, and Eric Resnick was writing about it the following year in 2005, and Bill Maher was even talking about it on CNN in 2006.

Shocked, my acquaintance demanded: Well why haven’t I heard about it until now? Because, I said, the mainstream media doesn’t want you to. They very much protect the closeted opponents of gay rights. That Bill Maher interview? After Maher talked about Mehlman on the live show, they censored it out of the rebroadcast. Here’s a clip from the movie Outrage showing just that (with much thanks to Mike Rogers for it!):

Let’s not forget that Fox News hasn’t mentioned Ken Mehlman’s Coming Out at all.

My acquaintance clung on: But that was then, now he is supporting marriage equality! Can’t you forgive him and move on?

I will forgive him when he apologizes and also stops funding anti-gay candidates. He hasn’t apologized for his past destruction, nor ceased all his present anti-gay support. If you read his interview with The Atlantic, he chooses his words very carefully. He does not use word “apologize” or “sorry.” He speaks of regret, but not about any of the harm he did. In fact, he continues to downplay the role same-sex marriage played in 2004′s elections. He speaks of regret very selfishly, that he is sad that he wasn’t further along in his journey:

“What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all.”

He said that he “really wished” he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, “so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]” and “reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans.”

That’s not an apology and it certainly doesn’t speak of responsibility or accountability. It’s political maneuvering. All of this, as ever before, is about what’s good for Ken Mehlman. He wants credit for coming out and supporting AFER. He wants pity for the tough position he was in. But in his mind—or at least in his words—he did no wrong. He’s a victim.

Well, it’s been said elsewhere, but it’s worth saying here again: that’s bullshit. And when I say that’s bullshit, I’m not coming from some super emotional, angry place. Frankly, I’m rather unfazed by this whole newsbreak because it wasn’t news to me. What does concern me is individuals like my acquaintance who had no clue what was going on while his life and his rights were being hit around like a fraying political shuttlecock.

There are a lot of LGBTQ people who have found “good enough.” They’ve got porridge they can eat and they’ve got just enough privilege that their lives aren’t too bad. So you know what they do? They turn a blind eye to LGBTQ issues. They aren’t in the closet; they’re in the dressing room. They’re going about their business like their fellow queers aren’t still fighting for their lives. Remember the lesbians whose kids were refused from the Catholic preschool? They got all upset that their super-comfortable we-have-everything-we-need, we-vote-and-that’s-as-political-as-we-need-to-get lives got upset, which was their own fault for subscribing to the Catholic Church to begin with.

What our LGBTQ community doesn’t know hurts us—is hurting us. I don’t know where my acquaintance now stands in regards to Ken Mehlman, but he definitely wasn’t in an informed place when he talked to me. We’ve conflated “pride” with “activism,” such that all the people who don’t want to be out and proud also choose to let others fight their fight for them. Some go so far as to say they don’t care; when faced with opportunities to learn what is happening in regards to LGBTQ issues, they actively reject that information. This privileged ignorance is one of the most destructive forces for our movement, because it gives everyone the impression that we’ve all found “good enough,” so there’s nothing left to work for.

We haven’t. Right now, in my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I can be denied housing, employment, and civil security for my relationship and family just because I’m gay. There is still bullying that goes uninterrupted. There are still hate crimes that go unprosecuted. In many ways, the LGBTQ community is just as unequal as it ever was, with the TQs even a few steps further back than where the LGBs have gotten.

But there is no outrage. Everything’s golden! Ken Mehlman’s helping us out now? Swell. I don’t know who he is, anyway. Let’s just keep everything peachy. After all, I don’t know any better anyway.

As Jon Stewart said at the end of his short segment last week:

It’s like that old poem: “First they came for the gays, but I didn’t know I was gay, so who gives a shit?”

We all have to care. We have to applaud the efforts of activists like Mike Rogers, even if they sometimes make us cringe. It’s our lives that continue to suffer from the spread of untruths and the manipulation of fear. Whether it’s quislings like Mehlman or just our most crass and vicious opponents, we have to know what’s going on, and we have to stand up for ourselves. If we don’t, we have only ourselves to blame.

By the way, Charlie Crist is up next. If you’re hearing it here first, you’re way behind.

But while post-9/11 bigotry against Islam was being discussed like it was news, some other studies showed that Manchurian Muslims aren’t the only nonsense Americans buy into.

A Gallup poll found that about 75% of Americans believe in at least one form of paranormal activity—some many more. Take a look:

I remember a point in my life where I might have believed in one, if not more, of these. For example, I am a perfect picture of a Virgo (what are my readers getting me for my birthday??), and I remember one day when I read my horoscope at the end of the day and it described the day I had had in ridiculous detail. I was convinced.

Of course, I was wrong. Astrology is BS. Just ask yourself this question: who writes your horoscope and how?

It’s disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising, that so many people are so easily duped. I wonder what the correlation would be if the same sample were asked if they believed being gay was a choice or that children of same-sex couples are not as well-adjusted as those of opposite-sex couples.

Unfortunately, this study showed no connection between level of education and level of gullibility. But another study did on one compelling point.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study about Americans’ perceptions of the future. One of the items was whether they believed Jesus Christ would return by 2050. One of the biggest factors that affected how people responded was the level of education they had achieved.

Those with college educations were much less likely to believe Jesus would be returning. Even those with only some college responded differently than those with only a high school education.

This, I think, bodes well for higher education. It’s one little observation about one little study, but I still think it’s one to be proud of.

A college education, in addition to preparing folks for their chosen profession, should promote critical thinking skills. While some might be saddened to see a loss of faith, I am proud to see an increase in rational thinking.

The Pew Study also found that Republicans were more likely to have a negative view about the future of education and were less likely to believe in ongoing global warming. Maybe if they cared a little bit more about supporting the education we already have, they would better understand concepts that are not really up for debate in the world of science.

I would love to see critical thinking skills and scientific literacy taking a higher priority in education, but in the meantime, I’m at least optimistic to see some great things are happening. It’s sad that our country is still so influenced by paranoia, but continuing to have the conversations is how we move forward.

Take a look through the studies to see some other interesting results.

This week, a group called Catholics for Equality officially launched.

Catholics for Equality empowers pro-equality Catholics to put our faith into ethical and effective political action on behalf of the LGBT community and their families.

Something about “pro-equality Catholic” just doesn’t sit right with me. There’s very little in Catholicism that in any way resembles “equality” and Catholicism has never been known for being pro-anything. Let’s hear a little bit more from their website:

Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, grounded in the Gospel message of Love, American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for LGBT people of any religious group in the U.S.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HE HE HE HE HE HE HE!! WHOO! I’m rolling around on the floor. Seriously ROTFLMFAO!!! That’s the best joke I’ve heard all day. You can’t be serious, right? I mean, the Catholics come close, but it’s definitely the Mormons who are the strongest supporters of LGBT equality, by far. Oh, that’s rich, or it would be if it weren’t so offensive to all the religious groups who do actually support LGBT equality.

Now, mocking aside, what they’re talking about is that there is a rift between congregants and the leadership. Catholics for Equality is a group designed to oppose the bishops. The Catholic Church isn’t exactly democratic or egalitarian in any conceivable way, so if congregants don’t want to accept what the leadership is spoon-feeding, they have to form a separate group to represent their point of view, and this is such a group.

The question here is: what does it mean to be “Catholic?” Is it anyone who maintains belief in the holy trinity? Is it anybody who just chooses it as a cultural identifier regardless of belief? There are a lot of folks in these categories who can be heard to say, “Well, I was raised Catholic.” Is it anyone who is technically still on the books as Catholic? If that’s the case, then I’m Catholic too.

When I think of people who openly identify as Catholic, I think of people who are still actively participating in the Catholic Church. This seems a fitting assumption for Catholics for Equality; they want to mobilize Catholic voters, influence legislation, and even get some pro-equality Catholics into office. I don’t think a lapsed Catholic (and flagrant atheist) like me would count as a victory for them.

Let’s grant the premise that there is a difference between Catholics and the Catholic Church. I despise the Catholic Church, and without writing an extensive rant, I think it’s safe to say that centuries of oppression of women and children, hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of anti-gay ballot measures, and the withholding of safe-sex education that would slow the spread of HIV in Africa are plenty of leg to stand on. (The fact that I was involuntarily assumed into Catholic membership is just icing on the cake for my unabashed bias.) I don’t despise Catholics, but if someone is going to identify as a Catholic for Equality, that person must convince me that they are actively working against all the injustice the Catholic Church stands for. And it does; platitudes about social justice teachings in Catholicism do nothing to excuse the behemoth of bigotry that was and is the institution of the Catholic Church.

So if there are several key points in Catholic dogma you don’t agree with, what does it say if you still identify as Catholic? That sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. I would ask such a person, “Why do you still identify as Catholic?” Sure, it could be for reasons I mentioned above, like it’s the term that still best resonates with a person’s personal religious belief or it’s an ethnocultural marker (like Irish Catholic or Italian Catholic). But if you’re actively participating in the Catholic Church or any of its ministries, that strikes me as a huge conflict.

The bottom line, I think, is whether or not a person contributes any money to the Catholic Church. I can get past a person identifying with the word “Catholic” and I can even keep my cool with people enjoying Mass. I think it’s boring as hell (and I’m still going to challenge you on your religious beliefs), but I can at least appreciate how someone might like the pageantry and ritual. However, if you allow a single penny from your pocket to make it into that offering basket or tithing envelope, we have a problem.

Giving the Church money is giving the Church your blessing. It’s enabling the Church to continue doing what the Church does. It’s an investment. It’s an assumption of accountability for the Church’s actions. And honestly, if you give to the Church and then tell me you support LGBT equality, I will probably just laugh, because knowingly or unknowingly, you are participating in hypocrisy.

That’s why I really struggle with Catholics for Equality. I want to support them; I really do. I am sure that they will educate some Catholics and make some positive change. I also truly appreciate the way they stand for separation of church (Church) and state. But ultimately, it’s just political masturbation. More Catholic influence on our culture is not going to do anything to help me in my life as a gay man. I don’t want more Catholics in power. As it is, I have to worry that the Supreme Court won’t uphold my right to equal protection specifically because it’s got so many Catholics on it. If you’re supporting the Church and working against the Church at the same time, are you actually making any progress?

The whole reason I started blogging is because I saw beliefs to be the problem. The intellectual fallacies I could understand as a freethinker were the same ones I saw oppressing me as a gay man. We wouldn’t have a problem with homophobia and transphobia (or heck, even patriarchy) if religious organizations did not continually push negative beliefs that ignore our modern-day understandings of sex, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Why should we applaud members of an organization hell-bent on resisting social justice for trying to support social justice without disavowing the very group they’re working against?

Were this group Ex-Catholics for Equality or even Lapsed Catholics for Equality, I’d applaud them for organizing. But Catholics for Equality? That sounds about as absurd as Quakers for War, Jehovah’s Witnesses for Blood Transfusions, or Muslims for Female Immodesty. If you want to support equality, take responsibility for resisting it in the first place.

Now, I could do the same thing. I could make shit up about what the religious right is going to do to your secular-minded gay-friendly progressive kids to scare you! But I don’t have to make anything up. The religious right sends it right to my email!

Get ready for WorldNetDaily back to school essentials! (Nope, not making any of this up.)

I’m sure the photographer thought, “Oh, we only need one black kid to look diverse; it doesn’t matter how white the rest of them are. Besides, the flag is a great excuse to keep the rest of the kids from making eye contact with him. Also, we’ll put him in yellow next to the girl grabbing her boob in green to help our readers remember which Metro lines to avoid when they come to DC. Ooh, and we can’t let those colors be in order!”

Yeah, that was incredibly snarky, but that kind of snark is the only that’s going to get us through the rest of this WND promo email. I’m going to go ahead and leave in the links, but just be wary of what you’ll find on WorldNetDaily… they’re a bit wacko.

It’s back-to-school time, whether your children go to public or private schools or you’re their teacher at home.

Either way, your kids need the essentials of a classical education – one they surely won’t get in a traditional school.

You know this already isn’t boding well. The “back to school” catalog isn’t notebooks and pencils for when they get to class. It’s all propaganda that students won’t get in school.

The WND Superstore has many of the essential resources you and your kids need.

It starts with the Bible – and there’s a great selection of low-cost choices.

Then there are great Bible study resources.

See, there are all these different versions of the Bible, and then a whole bunch of different ways to interpret each of the versions. (It’s not unlike the recent Indexed comic…) How do you know which is right for you? Well, with all the audio and video versions available, you’ll never have to actually parent or teach your kid a thing! Leave it all to the theological experts. Just point at whichever one you’ve been scared into thinking is most important and it’s yours!

Here’s something your kids won’t get for sure in a traditional school – “Nothing From Everything: The Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution” by Ray Comfort. You don’t want your kids believing they are the products of random chance and millions of years of evolution.

*Takes long deep breath.* Yes. WND wants your kids reading Ray Comfort. And they’re telling you want you want and don’t want. Random chance? Evolution? Malarkey! This isn’t stuff to help kids learn better at school; it’s stuff to help them unlearn when they get home.

The Constitution of the United States! Every child, no matter what age, should be grounded in the Constitution. Make sure your child has a pocket copy for only 99 cents.

I’m actually okay with that. And it doesn’t even seem to have one of those Ray Comfort “forwards of undoing,” if you will. It’s just the Constitution. I got my pocket constitution for free from the ACLU. (They actually know how to defend it.)

Here are some products that make politically incorrect learning fun:

• “Help! Mom! Hollywood’s in My Hamper”
• “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed”
• “Help! Mom! The 9^th Circuit Nabbed the Nativity”

Wow. These books are ridiculous. Here’s a description of the “…Under My Bed” which was the first in the series.

This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.

The second one (“…in My Hamper”) I might have a bit of tolerance for, because I’m not thrilled about the worship of celebrities either, but it has Mike Huckabee’s endorsement, which is a big red flag. The last one is about a school nativity play that gets ruined because of liberals obsessed with “diversity, global warming and stinky French cheese.” Maybe they could whip out that Constitution and read the 1st Amendment… but I’m sure that’s not the moral of the story.

Seriously, I’d be scared about my kids being read these books. Luckily, I don’t have to worry about that, for a number of obvious reasons.

Would you like to provide some historical perspective on the 20^thcentury and the battle for freedom? There’s no better way than the remarkable documentary, “In the Face of Evil.” Joseph Farah calls it one of the most important films ever made.

This film will make sure your kids are worshiping Reagan at an early age. I’m sure the portraits on the wall in every room are good clues, but the film will help seal the deal.

As for classic, don’t forget C.S. Lewis’ “Letters to Children” and “Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan.

Balance out Lewis’ apologetics for children with a century-old tome with even more religious dogma. Interestingly enough, “Pilgrim’s Progress” is listed under Fiction on the site.

Your children should be scared, very scared. The radical extremists want to circumvent science and civics to recruit their own army of brainwashed children.

Gosh, it sounds legitimately scary when it reflects reality and isn’t just a scare tactic meant to deceive.

Zack and Peterson are back together this week! And while Peterson is interested in conducting a sensible interview with our guest, Joe Gee, about being one of the earliest queer podcasters, Joe and Zack are more interested in spending the show busting on Peterson. Still, we manage to discuss Joe’s experiences podcasting, we “bump” a whole bunch of other shows, and Joe also talks about walking away from Quakerism and becoming a non-believer and humanist. Enjoy this raucous half-hour with your favorite queer podcasters back in action with puns and euphemisms galore!

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

» Teresa Ortega’s blog – In Sequence

» Yeast Radio featuring Madge Weinstein

» Queer Podder (now qpodder)

» The Progrum with Wanda Wisdom

» Ragan Fox’s Podcast (Fox and the City) and Blog (America’s Next Top Bottom)

» The Flatus Show with Kentie

» Hot Fossils and Rebel Matters with Ninja

» Zillafag

» Watch the Holy Ghost Enema video on YouTube!!

» Adam Curry (Podshow, by the way, is now Mevio)

» Music Alley (formerly PodSafe)

» The Dark Forest (not Deep Forest) with Ranger John

» The Lesbian Mafia

» Sisters Talk

» Feast of Fun

» Same Sex Sunday

I think there is something so important about celebrating our out LGBT artists. There are a lot of artists out there who can do things for our community, but artists from our community can really project our experiences with profound power. Tom is a great example of that, particularly in the way he’s so open and casual about his relationship with his amazing fiancé, Michael, who was also at the show last night, and for whom many of Tom’s songs are unabashedly written. Here’s a video Tom recorded of a song he’d just written about watching Michael snore, which he recorded while Michael was snoring. It’s incredibly sweet:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8opSPEocXk

I remember when I first discovered an out gay artist. It was Levi Kreis, and his album One of the Ones was this lovely collection of songs about love and relationships, and even if there wasn’t a single gendered word in the song, you knew they were about another man. There is something so important about hearing songs that are about our own experiences. I think so many in our community are still deprived of that opportunity: to see a fellow queer person communicate through music testimonies of our own lives.

While the music of the civil rights movement was very spiritual and inspiring, it seems music in the LGBT movement has been more about liberation. More than anything, ours has been a struggle against repression, a war against the closet and against those who would keep us there. When we celebrate ourselves, we celebrate our freedom and those chance opportunities to let loose. It’s unsurprising that dance and techno music has largely defined that, because that is exactly what dance music communicates: it makes you want to dance. It’s light and yet fierce at the same time; it’s incredibly freeing.

Unfortunately, many of the musicians we celebrate (Cher, Robyn, September, Ke$ha, Miley, etc.) have been heterosexuals, and while dance music may energize us, it lacks a real human connection to the joys and challenges of our lives as LGBT people. That’s why music like Tom’s is so important; it’s music for the 363 days we’re not at Pride. I wonder how many people re-closet themselves after they leave Pride and just ignore the reality of their own identity because it’s easier for them to do so. Truly queer music might be challenging to some in that it helps break down self-constructed closet walls, but the consequence is, I think, a deep sense of validation and connection. We are real people with real relationships and real emotions and there needs to be a soundtrack for our lives too.

I hope you, my reader, will take some time to find an artist who really speaks to your experience. Don’t settle for the spoon-fed mainstream pop music; it alone will not speak to the life you lead. Find the artists who do, and you will be amazed at how they impact and empower you.

Thanks for a great show Tom! If there are other openly queer artists out there who I can help connect with a queer audience, please let me hear from you! I like new friends and I like supporting queer musicians (and any other kind of visual/theatrical/etc. artists too)!

I’ll leave you with a song Tom Goss co-wrote with Matt Alber (who I featured here on Valentine’s Day ’10) about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell called “Who We Are.” Enjoy!

Tom Goss and Matt Alber -- Who We Are

Because we understand the impact of leaving Target and Best Buy on the various products associated with the Buyer’s Guide, both companies will soon be removed from it.

HRC will not encourage people to shop at either store and believes that consumers should make their own decisions after careful consideration of all of the information available to them.

No word on whether their CEI ratings will be docked any points as their current criteria allows. HRC also stops short of supporting a boycott of the stores, though given HRC's weak political tameness, one wonders whether they would ever support any kind of community activist tactic like a boycott.]

Okay, folks, let’s review, and I’m going make this REALLY basic for ya’ll:

» The Human Rights Campaign maintains a Corporate Equality Index (CEI), updated annually, that evaluates the employment practices of over 300 U.S. businesses in regards to LGBT issues. The criteria includes: non-discrimination policies, diversity trainings, trans-inclusive benefits, partner benefits, LGBT working groups and diversity councils, respectful advertising and marketing, and “responsible behavior toward the LGBT community” (for which 15 points are deducted if the company does something “to undermine LGBT equality”).

» Data from the CEI is used to inform the HRC Employer Search and the Buying for Equality guide released every November, which has an unabashed goal of harnessing the LGBT community’s buying power (estimated at $709 billion in 2009) toward supporting pro-equality companies during the holiday shopping season.

» The Target company has maintained a CEI rating of 100, which qualifies it for HRC’s list of “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.”

» Empowered by its new corporate freedom thanks to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision earlier this year, Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward, an organization in Minnesota supporting a “vehemently anti-gay candidate” (Joe Solmonese’s words) for governor.

» HRC stepped in and demanded that Target similarly give $150,000 to pro-gay candidates to offset the damage they’d done.

» After a couple days of talks, Target said, “No.”

» HRC committed to giving $150,000 of its own money to offset the costs.

First of all, how great is it that HRC is sitting on that kind of money that they can just dump it out without flinching? Man, the LGBT movement is just rolling in it!

Anyways, so let’s say you have a friend that you really like. One day, your friend beats the shit out of you. You tell your friend to stop beating the shit out you. Your friend says, “No.” What do you do?

I don’t know about ya’ll, but having been through middle school (as a nerd), I stop calling such a friend “a friend.” In fact, I might concoct a plan to take that jackass down a few pegs.

So what is HRC doing to punish Target?

Nothing. What is Target’s rating on CEI? 100. As groups like MoveOn are calling for boycotts (you know, to harness that spending power of the LGBT community and its allies), HRC has taken no position on boycotts. In other words, if HRC was saying a month ago that we should shop at Target, it isn’t saying it any less today.

This isn’t speculation. This is according to Fred Sainz of HRC on Michelangelo Signorile’s Radio Show yesterday.

Sainz said that it is hard to change the CEI criteria and that HRC is trying to “grapple” with the Citizens United changes.

Uh-huh. And what about those 15 points you can dock when a company isn’t being a “good corporate citizen”? It’s already built into the criteria. But guess who still has a 100 on the CEI?

Someone at HRC needs to take some Psych and Research Methods classes. You don’t continue to cheer for a friend once the friend is a bully. There’s this thing called conditioning and this other thing called codependency, and you don’t want to… oh forget it. Also, if the test you apply produces results that aren’t valid then… ugh, why am I wasting my time talking about education?

The problem here is that this is not about equality, it’s all about money. Michelangelo made this point pretty compellingly:

Let me just add that the bigger problem here is HRC offering a “buyer’s guide” at all. You’re not an ad agency for corporations; you’re a civil rights group. I know other groups do it, but it will always run into trouble. If you’re going to do it you need to be able to quickly fix it, such as in a situation like this.

It’s fine and good to list companies based on workplace practices and they should be letting LGBT people know what are the best companies to work for. But telling people to spend their money at these companies — and then HRC taking donations from these companies, as they have done with Target — puts your group in a bad position. It appears as if the reason for the buyer’s guide is to get donations from the companies in return for sending LGBT consumers to them. And the reason HRC is now “grappling” and trying to figure out what to do is because they’re worried about other companies in their index, some of which no doubt also give to antigay causes or candidates. If they remove Target they’ll have to remove others. They shouldn’t have been in this position — or should be able to react quickly and change the buyer’s guide immediately when a problem arises.

HRC only wants to guide our community’s buying power when they can benefit. HRC only wants to hold companies accountable if they have nothing to lose.

What does HRC stand for?

If the best they can offer is some heated rhetoric, they stand for nothing. This sounds so familiar… who else is really good with words but never expends any capital on behalf of our community…?

Oh right, the President. And guess who’s been #1 at Obama’s table on behalf of LGBT issues… oh, that’s right: HRC!

It seems like HRC really wants to look like it’s doing things for our community without actually accomplishing anything. While the President’s strategy is surely motivated by politics, HRC’s is motivated by money. And while the President’s inaction is bad for our community, HRC’s continued siphoning of our community’s money seems downright despicable.

What does HRC stand for? Today… not my rights.

And no, I’m pretty sure this is not a Poe. [Hmm... it really has to be. But it's a good Poe, because it surely has folks on both sides fooled. If people believe it is real, does that make it real?]

I don’t know that I’m the most stereotypical gay. The closet is a figment of my imagination at this point, so I wouldn’t be fooling anybody, but my behaviors don’t necessarily fit. Let’s take a look at how Christwire wants women to identify gay men and see how I fit. (Forewarning: All gay men are obsessed with sex, drugs, and their own bodies.)

By the way, the picture is your first clue: if he’s skinny (skinnier than you), hairless, and has messy Elijah Wood hair, you might be in a really stereotyping photoshoot.

1) Secretive late night use of cellphones and computers

Hmm… I suppose I’m not really secretive about my late night computer use. It’s about 9:30 PM right now as I’m working on this post, which will be visible to the world wide web, so I guess that’s not very secretive.  The author (a man) tells women that “for the sake of trust, a married couple should share everything, including phone logs, email accounts, chat friends and website histories.” Why do I have a hunch a man could easily set up this arrangement specifically to make it easier to hide what he was doing? Hello, Google Chrome Incognito.

2) Looks at other men in a flirtatious way

Alright, guilty as charged. In fact, I struggle with being subtle with my flirtation. I admitted on this week’s Queer and Queerer that I openly objectify my attractive friends. Sorry unattractive friends; when it comes to ogling, I’m as superficial as the next guy. I particularly love my straight male friends who openly flirt back; now that is trust and security in masculinity. Kudos, boys, for getting over yourselves.

3) Feigning attention in church and prayer groups

Not me. While churches might be the best place to pick up dudes, this atheist doesn’t need any closet cases in his life. Sorry, boys, but you won’t have me to prey pray on.

4) Overly fastidious about his appearance and the home

Well, I shower. I don’t have the “certain amount of grit” that “natural men” who sweat and smell have, but I don’t tweeze or get picky about my shampoo. Heck, I’m so old-fashioned I still use a wash cloth and bar soap. That’s gotta give me some straight points. Remind me what this has to do with whether or not I like cock? (Sorry potential employers who are reading this; I’m just being derisive for humorous effect. I hope you’re laughing!)

5) Gym membership but no interest in sports

Nope. Well, not really. I’m not interested in sports, but I don’t have a gym membership either. Just think how much I’ll be able to enjoy life without all the time wasted on my body for the sake of appealing to other guys who are so superficial that not having a six-pack is a deal-breaker. I can be healthy without spending every day trying to look like a Chippendale. Please. (Also, not a big fan of bathroom sex here. Hey! That’s what the article alleges!)

6) Clothes that are too tight and too “trendy”

I do think I look better it fitted clothes, but I’m hardly trendy. My wardrobe largely comes from Kohl’s, Old Navy, and Aeropostale. To all the gay men out there who just fainted, I do at least own one item of clothing from A&F (a super comfy cashmere scarf!). I certainly don’t own skinny jeans, and I don’t have to look at my butt in the mirror to know it looks good, thank you very much.

7) Strange sexual demands

So get this, heteros. If you want butt-sex from your lady, or you want her to tie you up and use you, that means you’re probably gay. You’re not allowed to be adventurous (or even curious) without having “deep emotional abnormalities.” Fetishes are fun. I don’t know who this Stephenson Billings guy is who wrote this POS article, but I’m worried about him. TALK ABOUT REPRESSION. (I’d rather talk about kink!)

8) More interested in the men than the women in pornographic films

There are porn films with women in them? Gross.

(I love you ladies, but… you know.)

9) Travels frequently to big cities or Asia

It’s true that gay culture only exists in Asia. Wait, what? I mean, it’s true that gay culture only exists in big cities. It’s annoying. It drives me crazy that central PA doesn’t have any bathhouses. I mean, where’s a guy supposed to go for lots of random anonymous sex in middle America? (Just kidding, folks, I don’t even know where to go with this one… Thailand?)

10) Too many friendly young male friends

Long hugs with young guys… nice. Incidentally, it was a straight man who bought me that scarf I referenced earlier. He was a good guy. And roommate. I miss him.

He was straight; I promise.

I guess I do have lots of young guy friends, but I’m a young guy, so, I guess, that’s just the way it goes.

11) Sassy, sarcastic and ironic around his friends

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

12) Love of pop culture

Meh. Apparently, “genuine heterosexual men” avoid gossip websites, Glee, and The Golden Girls. I don’t read gossip sites at all, and I’m not overly thrilled with The Golden Girls (at least not like my gay breathren), but I do love Glee. I’m going to say that this one does not adequately apply to me. Do I care that Chelsea Handler is going to host the MTV Video Music Awards? Who?

13) Extroverted about his bare chest in public

Uhhhhh… nope. No shirtlesness, no speedo at the beach.

14) Sudden heavy drinking

I don’t need to hide my distress. No drinking binges, no smoking, no crying. Sorry, Christwire.

15) Ladies, have you dated men in the past who turned out to be gay?

I did date a few girls in high school. Two of them are currently married. I should go ask them…

So how did I score? Only like… five? But you know what? I am gay.

Hey men, don’t beat yourself up. You don’t have to change who you are to be gay. Just come out and be yourself and be happy. Don’t ruin these poor women’s lives. You don’t need them worrying that they’re going to Hell because they think they’ve been infected with teh gay.

I guess I get an extra point for saying “teh.”

Both the Pennsylvania Independent and Philadelphia Gay News have published stories about the goings-down last Friday. (Full disclosure: both stories quote me.) The Independent has some pictures as well.

Also, here are two videos featuring some of the folks there to support NOM. I have a cameo in the first one around the 0:31 mark as I try to cross the street! I wish some heterosexuals would come out as sodomites; given that I am technically not a sodomite (so far in my life), I’m tired of getting roped in as a sinner just because I’m gay. (I need to get back to blogging about atheism; my sense of humor is taking a weird turn.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauRek-Du20

When we saw these guys’ approach with their red capes, my mom asked me who they are. I calmly replied “toreadors.” It was unfortunate for them that their chosen color matched ours. Check out the brilliant young Catholic mind hard at work:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-3kZGceHhc

Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is “99  percent supportive of your issues.”

John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding responded, “Tough” and “Good,” appropriately so. I very much appreciated this retort from Pam:

I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold – that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing “study”; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you’re 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.

Mediaite chimed in on the story, but posed the question of whether the White House should care about bloggers’ umbrage:

While bloggers may have an outsized-role with other activist groups that the White House wants support from, there may be little downside in questioning the role of activists/bloggers and touting the administration’s perceived successes outside of the LGBT blogosphere’s echo chamber-like voice.

This seems a bit uppity for Mediate, given that Mediate is, itself, a blog, and one that’s actually geared more toward the media industry. It should not be surprising that LGBT blogs have similar messages; they’re similar blogs. One thing I’ve noticed though is that everyone in the LGBT blogosphere does have a different take on things. In fact, I think we do a good job (myself included, I hope) of offering different perspective and coverage on different issues, even if we sometimes arrive at the same conclusions. Yes, I quoted other blogs (that’s what we do as good bloggers), but now I will add my own thoughts. We’re part of a movement, we have to have some cohesion, and the fact that we do is not cause to dismiss us as an echo chamber that doesn’t ever represent the sentiment of the greater community. To assume that the community has a singular opinion on anything is foolishness anyway.

Quite to the contrary, something‘s working if we have the White House’s attention.

So let’s stop for a second and consider: what can we actually learn about how the White House perceives us from Bond’s comment?

I think any or all of the following could be true based on what he said (even those that contradict each other).

» The White House sees the LGBT blogosphere as a threat to its messaging.

Pam suggested as much by referring to “THE LIST” that is surely kept somewhere. Which blogs does the White House read? They must read enough to be frustrated by what they see.

» The White House appreciates that a significant number of LGBT people read LGBT blogs.

Why would the White House be frustrated that blogs are criticizing the administration if people aren’t reading and spreading that criticism? They wouldn’t.

» The White House cares more about talking points and PR than reality or equality.

Oops! This is me piling on criticism of the White House. Don’t be surprised. In many regards, this administration hasn’t been much different than administrations in the past. It’s the same bone-throwing philosophy we’re used to (gnaw on that for a while). Unfortunately, the blogosphere is no longer interested in bones, and arguably has been an effective force in dismissing the bones members of the LGBT community might otherwise be content to chew on. Job benefits for unmarried partners of federal benefits? A memo against hospital visitation discrimination? Good, but not good enough. Like Pam said, the President asked us to hold him accountable, so the President should be frustrated if we are too.

» The White House does not think or care that a significant number of LGBT people read LGBT blogs.

This would be an easy thing for the White House to believe, especially since the LGBT group with the most access is the Human Rights Campaign. This is a real conflict within the community, as many feel HRC speaks for them and many don’t, but HRC is unabashed in proclaiming that they are the biggest LGBT org (by way of most supporters) and thus do speak for the community. I would argue that the bloggers who regularly criticize both HRC and the Obama administration have speak as much on behalf of the LGBT community as HRC claims too, but the influence HRC has might suggest otherwise to the White House.

» The White House does not really care what the blogs have to say.

If they did, we wouldn’t have been repeating ourselves for the past 18 months. Obama would have spoken to LGBT press outlets. They’d answer our questions directly. We wouldn’t have bad “compromises” about the fate of our equality. They would try to engage us instead of ignore us. Even if we frustrate them at times, we can’t mean all that much to them if they’ve never bothered with us.

» The White House does not care about having the LGBT blogosphere’s support.

This seems to be the most important conclusion. We may be annoying, we may get in the way of their messaging and their tactics, but they don’t see us as vital. Pam’s description of us as “mere gnats on the political landscape” seems apropos, in that it’s how the White House wants to see us. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any political equivalent for citronella oil. They will continue to just work around us. They’re frustrated, but not enough to do anything about it.

The bottom line is this: the administration wants control. They want to determine their LGBT strategy. They want to act like they know what’s best for us. They want to reserve their political capital. It’s all a power thing. If there’s one thing to be learned from Brian Bond’s comment, it’s that we do have an influence. We don’t go unnoticed.

We just have to up our game.

I mean that. You know, sometimes people write long treatises disagreeing with you, and those can be frustrating, but hatemail and disparaging comments are just funny.

The comment came from Aaron on my post about the book Negrophilia. As you recall, this was a book that was heralded by WingNutDaily because a black man was promoting white privilege. It was absurd and needed called out.

Before we get to Aaron’s comment (which has little to do with Negrophilia), you should learn a little about him. I was able to find him on Facebook because he provides his email, and while I will protect his information, I will point out that according to his profile pic (the only thing I can see), he identifies with a group called the Unorganized Militia: Propaganda Corps. From what I can gather, this seems to be a pro-2nd amendment (pro-self-defense, pro-gun rights, “pro-America”) group who are apparently anti-racist. This helps illuminate some of the contradictions and misperceptions in Aaron’s comment, but does not account for the inconsistencies in his approach to social justice.

At any rate, let’s see what Aaron had to say.

Come on people! You can’t take Zack Ford serious.

Well, he’s not even ten words in and already has a grammatical error, so the irony abounds.

The guy has a “Donate to queer or queerer” banner up and he looks like the poster boy for arrested development; and that is just what has been purposefully placed to draw the visual attention first.

Technically, I have a “Donate” button for people who want to make a Paypal donation for the work I do here on the blog and a “Queer and Queerer” button for people who want to listen to my delightful podcast with Peterson Toscano. If you expect me to split the money you donate with Peterson, you better specify that when you make the donation!

Now, I’m not sure who the “poster boy” for Arrested Development would be, but if it’s Jason Bateman or Michael Cera, I will take that as a HUGE compliment. It could be that Aaron meant actual arrested development, as in the antiquated term for severe mental impairment. Even if that’s the case, I still take the notion that I’m cute enough to be a poster boy as quite the compliment.

At closer inspection he has put “ZackFord Blogs | Behold the musings of Zack Ford, a politically-minded white, gay, male, nondisabled, middle-class, atheist educator with a passion for social justice.” at the very top of the page. The guy’s schtick is to be outrageous, like a clown. So, how serious should he be considered?

Well, I do try to be funny, although it’s a dry, sarcastic funny that doesn’t always register. I think the people who are the most funny are often the ones to be taken the most seriously. I trust what I get from Jon Stewart a whole lot more than most of those “serious” journalists on the other cable news networks.

In all actuality, if one considers just how many “Hal Turners” there are being Federally funded by traitors matching his individual definition within the Criminal Government, I’d say not much. His “job” is to be an underminer of ethics and morality. He is most likely funded some how by the cowards within the NSA and FBI to perpetuate their treasonous actions against the People of America and Humanity in General by espousing thier nonsensical and absurdist rantings which they hope will distract people lone enough while they continue to sell everyone out to global corporate bankers.

Now, given that he just compared me to a white nationalist/supremacist, I wonder if he didn’t quite read what I’d written. My point was to challenge white privilege, not reinforce it. For what I know of him, I am no more a fan of Hal Turner than Aaron seems to be.

I would not consider this blog my job. It certainly doesn’t pay like one. The three cents I make each day aren’t really my motivation for writing. I also really struggle with conspiracy theories, because they tend to be so rooted in general paranoia, so Aaron’s lost me there.

I am with Aaron on despising global corporate bankers, though. My hope is to raise awareness—to educate—not to distract with nonsense. I wrote something similar myself earlier this summer.

So, don’t take this guy too serious.

His grammar might be wrong, but at least he’s consistent.

He’s just a morally bankrupt peice of subhuman scum who will always ever contend points with absurdities in hopes to make himself appear supperior while building philosphical foundations made up mud and shit.

The angrier people are when they write, the worse their spelling gets. That’s my hunch, at least for Aaron’s sake.

So, I’m morally bankrupt. This is because I challenge racism? Or religious privilege? Or just plain bad ideas?

Subhuman scum. I’m glad to know that I’m both dirty and do not even qualify as a person.

My points are absurd… or he just doesn’t get them.

I have philosophical foundations made up of mud and shit. From what I learned about some Native American tribes in Elementary School, structures made of mud were sturdy and well insulated. I didn’t even realize I talked all that much about philosophical foundations. I just try to be rational, is all.

The latter of which the guy has a deranged fascination for, his being admittingly gay. He is either a packer or receiver of it. Is it any wonder that he espouses it also?

Somehow the fact that I’m gay is connected to my fascination with muddy/shitty philosophical foundations? I’m not sure I even understand that. I mean, I’m assuming Aaron’s got some moral conflicts with homosexuality that he’s implying here. It’s interesting that he struggles against racism and yet perpetuates homophobia. Bummer.

Ah! No, I get it now. I have a fascination with shit. Because I’m a fudge-packer or something. I get it now.

Well, actually, that is wrong. The world doesn’t need to know the details of my sex life, but I’ll share this much: I’m neither a packer nor a receiver. Not all gay men like anal sex; I’ve never had it. So there. Stereotype busted!

I wish Aaron had made one relevant point. Then I wouldn’t have to make fun of his comment in a full post. But, well, there you have it.

First, here’s a quick reminder of the vocab, because I know it can get confusing. The plaintiffs are the good guys (represented by Olson and Boies), the defendants are the actual government officials, and the proponents are the Protect Marriage folks who stepped in as defendant-intervenors.

» When Judge Walker first overturned Prop 8 two weeks ago, he implemented a temporary stay for his own ruling for the sole purpose of giving the defendants/proponents a window to demonstrate why the decision should be stayed until after appeal. This was a tough case to make since he said in the decision that same-sex marriage in no way harmed anybody or any marriages.

» We learned that Judge Walker would make his decision on this matter last Thursday (August 12). We waited with baited breath through a three-hour window in which we thought we would hear. Couples were waiting in line to marry and extra city officials had been deputized to help perform the marriages. Finally, sometime in the fourth hour we learned that he would be lifting the stay, but it would still be in effect until this Wednesday (tomorrow, August 18).

Many were underwhelmed by this response. Given that the original decision had been so unabashed in outlining the harm to gays and lesbians by Proposition 8, this seemed an unnecessary extension of that harm. Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry called it Justice Delayed. The extension of the stay created room for the Appeals Court to offer their own stay without there being a window of legal same-sex marriage.

» Yesterday, the appeals court did issue their stay until that round of the trial is over. This is disappointing news for most. The court did expedite the case, but that won’t necessarily appease many, as the trial date is in December, and a decision won’t come until potentially months afterward.

» There is still the question of standing, whether the proponents have the right to appeal at all since they are not the defendants. A decision in that matter could end everything else. If that were to happen, Judge Walker’s ruling would apply, but to California only. Still, it would be an important precedent for future trials in other parts of the country.

That’s where we stand now. Same-sex couples still cannot marry in California. A final decision in that matter is still at least half a year away, if that. It’s odd to recognize that we had this huge victory two weeks ago and yet we don’t have much to show for it.

In the meantime, we can still take a whack at Protect Marriage and their ugly gloating over basic procedure that is not really a victory for them at all.

Here was Charles Cooper’s reaction last Thursday when Judge Walker (kind of) lifted the stay:

We are gratified that Judge Walker has continued until August 18^th the temporary stay of his decision.  We will promptly seek from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a stay pending the final resolution of the case. On appeal, we look forward with confidence to a decision vindicating the democratic process and the basic constitutional authority of the 7 million Californians who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny.

Again, this completely ignores the fact that it is Judge Walker’s job to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land. Andy Pugno then, of course, gloated yesterday when they got a stay:

This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Prop 8 proponents to stay U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, thereby upholding the vote of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. The arguments will occur in San Francisco the week of December 6, 2010.

“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.

Always eager to play the victim! Enjoining Judge Walker’s decision would have validated my confidence in the judiciary to be a balanced check, but that’s just me.

Pugno went further in an email to Prop 8 supporters:

As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

Of course, he has to raise the stakes so he can ask for more money two paragraphs later. He’s so appreciative of the prayers and support. Won’t you give these whiny brats a special donation so they can continue to waste the government’s time with unconstitutional, discriminatory ideas?

Or, don’t. :)

Zack is flying solo this week, which is why we aren’t counting this as a real episode. After a weekend of partying with his college roommates, friends, and friends of friends (old and new) in the 518 as the token gay in the whole group, Zack sits down with a group of them to find out what it’s like for them to have him as a gay friend. The conversation took place on Sunday afternoon sitting in a circle of lawn chairs in a garage after a night of pirate-themed partying and morning of cleanup, so the mood was pretty chill. Find out how heterosexuals Judd (Zack’s roommate of two years), John, Patrick, Chris, and Erin (some female perspective) have been impacted by their gay friend in terms of their understanding of LGBT issues and perspectives on masculinity.

Check back next week for a very exciting episode 20. Don’t forget to submit ANY questions you want Peterson or Zack to answer! No holds barred!

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

» Zack’s Theory on Straight Men with Gay Friends (and Glee’s portrayal of it)

» Peterson’s partner, Glen, has a great piece up on Prop 8 and populism.

What an exciting afternoon at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. The National Organization for Marriage took center “stage” on the steps but we actively responded and created visibility across the street for LGBT equality! (Click on the image to the left for the full interactive gallery or click here if you can’t see it!)

There was actually surprisingly big turnout for NOM’s part. Prop 8 Trial Tracker/NOM Tour Tracker counted NOM at 75. I heard that some Pennsylvania orgs (like AFA of PA, etc.) helped bring more people in. From where we were standing across the street, it was hard to see and hear NOM’s rally because of their bus—which I think was a good thing.

Our numbers were hovering just around 50 at any given time. We were mostly engaged in a honking war. People driving down the street from our side would honk for us and we’d cheer. Folks coming the other direction would honk for NOM (and the Catholics standing by the street, though that’s almost redundant), then see us and hide their faces in shame. It was pretty interesting to watch, and it was great to see so many passers-by offer us their support, including company truck drivers, city bus drivers, and even pizza delivery folks!

I think our counterprotest was extremely effective. We did very few cheers while NOM’s speakers were yakking away, but it might not have mattered because the street and bus were a great buffer. I say great, because we had a whole lot more visibility to traffic and the media spent a lot of time filming us and interviewing us. You can also see from the photos that we had a lot of positive messages and a great spirit of family, and when we did chant, it was messages of love and equality. We also sang “This Land Is Your Land” and “Gentle Loving People.”

I find myself wondering how differently our event would have been if Equality Pennsylvania had supported the event. For sure, as Adam Bink pointed out on P8TT, if the people who had come to last night’s event came today, we would have outnumbered NOM, as there was very little overlap. We’ll never know for sure, but we can rest assured that there is some amazing grassroots support in Central Pennsylvania who won’t let NOM go unanswered. I want to personally thank Audrey Smith and Kelly McEntree who both helped mobilize a lot of people to be out there today!

On a personal note, I was quite proud of my mother for joining me today. It was her first real act of LGBT activism, and I was actually surprised by just how fired up she got! She’s a great ally and it meant a lot to have her with me.

The event consisted of a screening of the new documentary Stonewall Uprising, which I found particularly compelling. Even when you know a lot of the history and precedent for your community, there is something incredibly powerful about hearing the story told by the people who were actually there. It’s also a stark reminder that what we know as “Pride” today started there, yet most people don’t understand the important historical roots of such events. If you have a chance to see this film, do.

Following the film was a youth panel, featuring student leaders from local universities (UPenn, Millersville, Lincoln, and Gettysburg). They spoke about the work they have been doing to increase visibility for our community, humanize LGBT people, and educate their peers on our issues. They were passionate and really related to the film, saying “anger can be a firestarter” and “you cant wait for others to achieve equality for you.”

It was great to hear about some of the successes at Millersville, but disappointing to hear about some of the frustrations at Lincoln, our nation’s oldest HBCU. There, they only started their LGBT student organization last year for the first time. We often think of our universities as these sanctuaries for LGBT students, but many have long ways to go.

What was most telling is that the student leaders were very aware of generational divides. In one sense, there was a defensiveness that many young people can be apathetic, but that isn’t necessarily representative or as accurate as some would like to think it is. They also recognized that young people didn’t live through Stonewall; they didn’t live through the times when homosexuality was most demonized. Nonetheless, they can be just as energized. They want to build better relationships across generations and always “give credit where credit is due.”

Overall, I thought it was a great event, with about 60 people in attendance. I was disappointed that at an event that was spurred by NOM’s Summer Tour, little if nothing was said about NOM, about demonizing tactics in modern day, or about marriage equality in general. I recognize that marriage is not Equality Pennsylvania’s number one issue; employment and housing discrimination are serious concerns for LGBT Pennsylvanians. Still, it seemed an opportunity was lost to capitalize on the frustration folks might have regarding NOM’s arrival in the city.

Today, we offer our own response. I will be at the counterprotest motivating those who want to stand up for themselves and doing what I can to document the event. Below is the press release:

August 11, 2010 – Harrisburg, Pa — On Friday, August 13, 2010 from 12:00pm – 1:00pm Justice League – Activate! a group based out of State College, Pa, Equality Across America, a national group that organized the National Equality March in DC back in October 2009 and Freedom to Marry, a national organization that fights for the rights of same sex couples to marry are glad to join the National Organization for Marriage in drawing attention this summer to the importance of marriage.

In announcing their summer tour, NOM declared that this is “an urgent time for marriage” and that “a strong marriage…makes a strong family,” “strong neighborhoods,” and “strong towns, cities and states.” We couldn’t agree more, which is why we believe that it is time to stop excluding loving and committed same-sex couples from marriage. Two major political issues involving same sex marriage in the United States involve the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage between one woman and one man and has recently been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts; and Proposition 8, a voting initiative that took the right of marriage away from same sex couples in California, which has also recently be ruled unconstitutional by Judge Walker in Sacramento.

At noon, the co-founder of Justice League – Activate!, Audrey Smith, a lesbian from State College, will welcome the crowd of counter-protesters and explain why marriage equality matters to her family. Equality Across America PAC 9 founder Scott C. Strait, a gay local college student from the Harrisburg area, will also share his story and then introduce Jesse Salazar, the Latino and LGBTQ Liaison for Senator Bob Casey Jr. After the various speakers from the audience have shared their family’s stories, the crowd will be led in some cheers that honor love and equality including: “We’re here, we’re queer, our families are REAL!”, “Gay, Straight, Black, White – Marriage is a civil right!” and more.

Those interested in joining the counter-protest should meet out front of the state capital at North Third and State streets promptly at noon on Friday. We ask that you wear red. We also must request that you are respectful to the NOM protesters and other commentators, keeping a safe distance at all times, and remember that this will be a family event.

For more information on the counter-protest or how you can become involved, email Audrey Smith at nimrochdain@yahoo.com or Scott Strait at ScottCStrait@Gmail.com.

From my point of view, it was an accurate word to use. The definition is “lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.” Here is an organization committed to being “the preeminent LGBT advocacy organization” in PA and to establishing “a comprehensive network of individuals and organizations united in securing equal rights for the LGBT community.” Yet they are backing away from an opportunity to be and do just that in a way which other state organizations have been quite successful with. (Including a picture of One Iowa’s rally was quite intentional on my part.) They also went the extra step of discouraging other interested individuals from counterprotesting. These are tactics that I not only disagree with, but which seem counter to the organization’s mission statement. Whether it was a concern for PR or otherwise, I see that choice as a lack of courage to stand up for stated goals, and so I used the word “cowardice” to accurately describe my disappointment.

Since that posting, I have been accused by various individuals that it amounted to “name-calling,” that it was “petty” and “hateful,” that “we shouldn’t be eating our own,” that I had no “principles,” that I am “counter-anything,” that I poked people in the eye, and of course, that I was “attacking” EQPA.

These are fair critiques. But what are they critiquing, exactly? It seems to me that they describe my tact (and my tact alone). They seem to reflect an impression that my tact was perhaps harsh, biting, unfair, out of line, disrespectful, taunting, weak, and/or unnecessary. They reflect a defensive point of view, certainly. What they do not speak to is the accuracy of my statement.

Why would I write challenging things about a local organization? I want what’s best for it. I want to hold it to a higher standard. I want it to represent me. I don’t want it to get away with speaking on behalf of the community. (I don’t want members of the community following its word like blind zombies out of some sense of loyalty or solidarity.) I want it to be accountable. I want it to have to explain itself. I want it to know that not every one of its actions pleases everybody. I want it to be able to take constructive criticism. I want it to be the best organization it can be.

I am not anti-EQPA. Far from it. If I didn’t stress it enough in yesterday’s post, I think the event they are planning this week is a good event. It’s education. It’s awareness raising. It’s coalition building. It’s a great event! I’ll be there. I’ll probably write about it (probably quite positively). And I will support EQPA in the future.

But while the movie/panel event uses NOM to raise awareness (and lest we forget, money), it does not actually respond to NOM. It does not respond to the message reinforcing discrimination. It does not provide the community with resolution or catharsis. It does not address the real need of members of the community to stand up for themselves and defend our integrity from NOM’s smears. And to not only ignore but discourage those needs out of concern for PR is, I think, a failing and represents a lack of courage and wherewithal to be the organization EQPA aspires to be in its mission statement.

But, if there’s a problem with my tact, I’m going to take that under serious advisement. I don’t want to be known as the schoolyard bully or some raving blogger who has it out for everybody. I want to be respected for my point of view and I want my critiques to be valued. If tact is going to be a measure of my contributions as much as content, then I have to earn that respect; I have to learn and grow to be that kind of blogger and activist.

And so, I apologize for using the word “cowardice” in association with Equality Pennsylvania. While I still contend that it was an accurate word, I did not intend for the hurt that it caused some individuals and do not wish to stand by that hurt. Intention only protects us so far; we are still accountable for perception. I hope that those who had concern about the tact of my piece can forgive me for where my tact was deficient and yet appreciate the concerns that I raise.

My concerns persist, but allow me to try to frame them more positively. EQPA has a new board, a new mission statement, and a new Executive Director, an individual that I proudly call a friend. It is, for all intents and purposes, a new organization. Here are some hopes that I have for it.

I hope that it puts the community first, even if there is the possibility of risk to its self interest. I hope it never discourages individuals from speaking out or engaging in activism. I hope it encourages individuals to get involved with activism not connected to EQPA. I hope that it never promotes its own message in such a way as to exclude other perspectives in the movement. I hope it does not ever try to speak on behalf of the community, and if it achieves the “preeminence” it seeks, I hope it does not ever try to act on behalf of the community. I hope that it supports and partners with other organizations and helps new ones get started. I hope that it maintains transparency and stays attentive to the grassroots instead of imposing top-down leadership. I hope money, lack of money, or opportunities to fundraise never dictate its actions. I hope that it raises great LGBT awareness across the commonwealth, particularly in rural parts of Pennsylvania. I hope it finds its own footing and doesn’t rely on other organizations for its outreach. I hope it brings new players to the table and provides extensive opportunities for individuals to get involved across the state. I hope it achieves equality in Pennsylvania and that even then it continues to do good work promoting and defending the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Pennsylvanians.

I have high hopes for Equality Pennsylvania. I’m challenging it this week because I have reason to be dismayed, but I challenge because I have hope.

You see, I think there is incredible importance in reacting. We need to stand up for ourselves. We need to create visibility for ourselves. We need to counter our opponents and their lie-riddled fear-mongering rhetoric at every turn. It’s a matter of integrity—a demonstration of our courage and our stamina. Alone, it’s not a winning strategy; you don’t win a game of chess if you only defend your own pieces. Still, it’s a vital part of our movement and our social well-being.

That’s why I am incredibly disappointed in Equality Pennsylvania’s cowardice in deciding not to counterprotest the NOM tour stop this Friday in Harrisburg.

The National Organization for Marriage has been driving around the US, rallying tens of people at their events, and then creating “breaking news” propaganda videos about how aggressive the counterprotesters are. It’s a devious tactic. Freedom to Marry and the Prop 8 Trial Tracker (“NOM Tour Tracker”), as well as bloggers like Jeremy Hooper at Good As You have been countering them at every turn, revealing the truths of their claims. They only have a few stops left, and on Friday they will be here in little ol’ Harrisburg, PA (it’s the capital!).

Equality PA released a statement explaining why they were not counterprotesting (emphasis in original):

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) kicked off their “One Man, One Woman” tour on July 14th. At each stop where there have been counter protests or attendance by pro-equality supporters, they have disrespected or mocked them and attempted to provoke them into screaming or yelling. Their goal in doing this is to make our side look foolish and hostile. We have also seen that they like to play a numbers game where if we have even a few less attendees than at their event, they will claim that the momentum is moving in their direction. We know from the recent polling numbers and the pathetic turnout their rallies have been recording, that this simply isn’t the case.

We are working hard to advance equality and will continue to do so long after they leave town. While we may be upset by their rhetoric, we can’t get caught up in retaliation when we need to remain focused on what needs to get done to win! Putting our energy into showing up at their event does not help to move us forward. What will help to advance equality in Pennsylvania is if we use them coming to town as an excuse to mobilize local activists and build our network.

So after NOM finishes their ranting and heads to the next town, we will be out there getting it done! We are holding a terrific event in Harrisburg on August 12, the night before they arrive, around a special showing of the movie “Stonewall Uprising” with a panel on youth activism afterward. We encourage everyone who can, to attend.

Click here for more information!

Not only is this a great movie, but this public conversation will increase our network and identify new volunteers and supporters. Please do what you can…attend, make a donation or just plain follow our activities. But please, ignore NOM when they come to town and don’t interact. Attention is exactly what they want, and why should honest people who hold equality close to their hearts be tricked into supporting their sad little charade.

This is an expression of cowardice. It buys into a “fight or flight” dichotomy that doesn’t reflect the reality of potential responses. The assumption is that we cannot respond to NOM’s rally without looking “foolish,” “hostile,” or retaliatory, ignoring the notion and potential of tact.

Is it possible to counterprotest NOM in a peaceful way? A way that creates visibility and builds unity for our community and our families? A way that makes sure that any media coverage includes stories of our experiences and our truths? A way that overshadows NOM’s message of discrimination without fueling their propaganda machine? It’s not easy to pull off, but such a way exists.

That’s why EQPA’s decision amounts to cowardice. Rather than take a risk, they’d rather not try at all. Maybe they should be ashamed, but maybe not. If they don’t think they have the resources or capacity to pull it off, I can totally understand why they wouldn’t want their stamp of approval on it. However, I resent the smugness with which they claim to rise above, ignoring the important catharsis achieved when our community rejects its own condemnation.

That’s not to say that EQPA doesn’t make some good points in their statement. It is true that NOM has been using their tour to paint a negative picture of activists, but it’s NOM. They’ll find a way to spin it their way regardless. Given that Harrisburg is the only stop that hasn’t had a major organization planning a counter response, I’d hate to see Central Pennsylvania spun as a bastion of anti-gay hate. I think EQPA is onto something with using NOM to mobilize local activists, and I think the film screening is a great idea. Educating about the movement’s history and raising the voices of queer youth is amazing, but it doesn’t undo the hurt NOM causes many by rolling into town to spout their incendiary drivel.

We have a serious problem if our movement isn’t willing to stand up to our opponents. I don’t think anything has been more compelling than the media appearances Olson and Boies have been making since last week’s Prop 8 ruling, unabashedly defending the truths of our lives and obliterating our opponents. That sort of visibility and education is exactly what many of the counterprotests have accomplished with their truth squads. It’s the kind of work an organization like Equality Pennsylvania should be prepared to handle without compromising their other proactive work.

Standing up for equality means standing up for equality whether it’s convenient or not. Even if it’s not on our playing field, we have to show.

That’s why I will be participating in a counterprotest on Friday at noon being organized by a group called Justice League – Activate. I will stand against NOM with my family, document their efforts, and speak on behalf of Pennsylvania gays and lesbians who still are subject to state-sponsored discrimination. If none of my friends will stand with me out of solidarity with Equality Pennsylvania, that’s their choice. However, I will not let preachers of discrimination control the media for the day without some visibility from the people they unflinchingly discriminate against.

While I still argue that proactive activism demands greater priority, reactive activism is important for our community’s maintenance. We have to be strong enough to rebuff our opponents AND push forward in spite of them. To ignore them is forfeit and I’m already tired of feeling like I”m on a losing team.

I hope you’ll join me Friday to show Central Pennsylvania that we are here, we are queer, and we care about marriage too. We want the same safety and security that marriage provides. We are proudly standing up for all families who just want to live their lives as happy members of their Pennsylvania communities.

In that previous post, I showed how many local churches here in Central PA were employing curricula from such extremist groups as Answers in Genesis and Living Waters/Way of the Master, groups intent on interrupting science education to promote their fervent creationist nonsense. These camps target kids as young as 3 years old.

As I was poking around The Daily Item yesterday, I found a story about another local VBS that shows just how benign such indoctrination can be. My point is not to paint these Sunbury folks as extreme or malicious, but merely to demonstrate how much privilege religion has in our communities and what easy access religious leaders have to our youth.

Maggie Kurtz woke up one day with a vision and decided to change the rules.

She succeeded.

Kurtz, 33, of Sunbury, is the director of vacation Bible school for the First Baptist Church, in Sunbury, and she decided it was time to get away from traditional methods and get in the minds of children and help teach them about the past, while having fun in the present.

“I wanted to have the children take a trip into the Egyptian culture,” Kurtz said. “When the children arrive, they enter Egypt.”

To be honest, her idea is pretty creative. As far as education goes, it’s a wonderful way to engage children’s minds. Unfortunately, her motive is to convey the Bible with the illusion that Bible stories are fun. It’s all just peaches and creme in that Old Testament!

You see, there’s this false juxtaposition. The folks in the story talk about how “amazing” and “wonderful” it is to see the “delightful” kids make Egyptian headbands and weave their own baskets. And these innocuous activities are paired with Bible teaching, thus suggesting that the Bible teaching is also innocuous. It’s far from it.

And consider: here is a mainstream local newspaper featuring this story about all the fun the kids are having. How many parents that aren’t even members of First Baptist are going to send their kids to the VBS so they can experience the Egyptian marketplace too? Talk about free publicity.

Gavin Shawder, 4, of Northumberland said he attended all week and had the time of his life.

“I enjoy this so much,” he said. “It’s a real good time.”

I say forcing religion (or sneaking religion) upon young minds amounts to child abuse and inhibits their free will. Wait until their brains develop enough before attempting to indoctrinate.

Jordan Hunt, 12, of Selinsgrove, agreed with his younger friend, but said he had other reasons for being there, not just the fun.

“I like it here and it is fun,” Hunt said. “But to tell you the truth, I really enjoy learning from hearing the Bible stories.”

I sure hope that Jordan doesn’t turn out to be gay. He might already be convinced the Bible is the place to look for answers and he will be led astray.

Sorry, I know there are many folks out there who aren’t bothered by Vacation Bible School, but I think it’s just plain evil.

I wonder if Maggie Kurtz might be convinced to talk a little bit more about modern-day Egypt and teach the kids about Islam. Let’s get some Vacation Qur’an School going and see if it gets covered in the local newspaper with interviews about how fun it is! I’m sure no one would flinch…

She graced the pages of Glamour magazine. She stunned the nation on Good Morning America. She helped launch a movement (Beyond Ex-Gay) and NOW she is our guest on Queer and Queerer! Zack and Peterson welcome Christine Bakke to the program. Christine is an artist, an activist, and an outspoken ex-gay survivor. As a lesbian who once tried to suppress and change her orientation, she now speaks out passionately about the dangers of treatments that try to “de-gay” you. She joins us to talk about the Prop 8 ruling, its implications for the Ex-Gay Survivor movement, exorcism, demon nests, and activist art!

Remember, send us your questions for episode 20! You can ask us ANYTHING.

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

» Read the Prop 8 decision findings of fact in detail.

» The Slate Political Gabfest discusses the Prop 8 ruling.

» Meet Ryan Kendall, Ex-Gay Survivor and Prop 8 witness

» Details magazine looks at gay exorcism

» The APA’s Report on Reparative Therapy

» Be careful not to fall out of your RV!

Read The Daily Item for yourself:

» Liverpool woman in critical condition today following fall from moving RV

» Peaceful morning disrupted today by a bulldozer

The long list of people we are encouraged to hate:

Union workers — because everyone should enjoy working for $3 an hour.

Illegal aliens — because it’s easier to hate them than the people who have hired them for decades.

Unemployed — because even though they paid unemployment insurance they shouldn’t expect to collect on it.

Welfare folks — we’ve been told to hate them for so many years it’s now part of our DNA.

Non-Christians — because religious freedom went out of style with the Mayflower.

Environmentalists — because their selfish dream of clean air and water has destroyed our economy.

Liberals — because you can never trust anyone who is not driven by pure greed.

Trial lawyers —- akin to a weasel except for corporate trial lawyers.

Minorities — but only until we ourselves become a minority.

Gays — because God has zero tolerance for fornication among those who are not church leaders.

If you listen to politicians and the corporate interests that run our media, you’ll find these groups are targeted over and over. It’s been a distraction as the middle class slowly vanishes.

LORETTA LEHMAN, Wheatfield Twp.

I think she left out judges, whose personal lives and professional standards are scrutinized just for fulfilling their Constitutional obligations.

Rock on, Loretta.

Statement of Charles J. Cooper, lead counsel for the proponents of Proposition 8, concerning the decision rendered today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

Today, a single federal judge has negated the will of the people of California.

No, he didn’t. He overturned an unconstitutional mandate determined by 52% of the valid vote-casters of California who participated in the November, 2008 election in fulfillment of his Constitutionally-mandated responsibility as a federal judge.

The central premise of the court’s ruling is that it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage.

Technically, he ruled that the idea of retaining such a definition was irrational, not the idea of the citizenry making decisions.

The court holds that the ubiquitous definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a historical curiosity that serves no purpose whatsoever, but rather is based solely on anti-gay biases.

Shocking as it may be, that is, in fact, true.

Indeed, the court went so far as to brand as “irrational” all supporters of traditional marriage, which is the vast majority of all people, in American and throughout the world.

No, here you’re quite wrong. He made no such judgment about the people who supported the referendum. In his own words, the word “irrational” appears twice in the decision. On p. 109, he uses it to describe using sexual orientation to classify people. On p. 133, he uses it to describe the post-hoc state interests that your defense team, Mr. Cooper, espoused at trial. At no point did Judge Walker refer to supporters in this way.

As New York’s high court recently recognized, until very recently it “was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.”  [Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d at 8 (N.Y. 2006)].

And then recently happened.

The historical record reveals that the traditional definition of marriage is grounded in society’s interest in channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships between men and women into enduring, stable family units to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by the man and woman whose union brought them into the world.

The court record and the expert witnesses reveal that that’s a load of malarkey. For example, the traditional definition of marriage included coverture, the idea that a man owned his wife and all of her belongings. It also never had procreative ability as a prerequisite nor required procreation after affirmation.

Judge Walker’s ruling sweeps aside this historical understanding of marriage.

The one that has constantly changed over the ages? I’d say he did the opposite.

In its place, he has announced that “Marriage is the state recognition of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependants.”

In its place? That’s what it was on August 3rd, too.

His opinion thus treats children as a mere afterthought when it comes to marriage.

Quite to the contrary, Mr. Cooper. I might refer you to Judge Walker’s Findings of Fact 35, 41, 49, 55, 56, 69, 70, 71, and 72. You might be surprised what you learn when you actually read the decision, considering you obviously didn’t pay attention to any of the testimony.

The Court’s disregard for the historical purposes of marriage would require California to embark on a novel experiment with the fundamental institution of marriage.

Wouldn’t be the first time! Besides, how many decades have to pass before ideas aren’t considered “novel” or “experimental” anymore? Or heck, centuries? Emperor Nero is rolling in his tomb.

In doing so, it threatens to harm the vital interests historically served by marriage.

Scary language. No substance.

The United States Constitution provides no warrant for this result, as demonstrated by the all-but-unanimous judgment of other federal courts that have addressed the issue.

Looks like Judge Walker found some pretty solid warrant for this result. Besides, no such judgment has ever heard this kind of testimony on the issue. Look what happens when there’s real information provided in a trial about gays and lesbians!

In addition to dismissing the traditional definition of marriage, the judge incredibly found that children don’t need fathers. Or mothers. To state this proposition is to refute it.

No, that’s not what the judge found at all. The judge found, based on substantial research and evidence, that the genders of a child’s parents do not determine how well that child is raised.

And the court also found that there is no benefit whatsoever for a child to be raised by its own biological parents.

That’s true. Adoptive parents like my own appreciate this resistance to such stigmas as your own, Mr. Cooper.

Fortunately, the Constitution does not require the people to substitute the social science musings of gay rights activists for common sense. This decision will not stand.

Musings? How about overwhelming consensus. And yes, actually, judges are beholden to keep experts and their evidence accountable to standards of intellectual rigor.

Fortunately, the case is not over. Judge Walker acknowledged from the outset that “this case is only touching down in this Court, … it will have a life after this Court, and what happens here, in many ways, is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.”  July 2, 2009 Tr. of Hr’g at 12.  About that he was right. We have already filed a notice of appeal and look forward to the next stage of this litigation.

And we’re all so glad you will continue to spin your foundationless vitriol for us all to see.

Is he really that stupid or does Protect Marriage just pay him enough that he’s willing to sound like it for the sake of the case?

I’m sure such a statement will get them a ton of donations, though.

(You can find all my Protect Marriage responses listed in italics in my Prop 8 Archive.)

I don’t think anything in the decision is as powerful as the Findings of Fact I compiled yesterday. Another important aspect was the determination of expertise for the witnesses that were offered as “experts.” As I pointed out back in January, there were some compelling face-value distinctions between the plaintiffs’ witnesses and the proponents’ witnesses. It seems that Judge Walker thought so too.

He takes a fair amount of time in the decision to outline the credentials of the expert witnesses and the criteria used to evaluate them. This was surely necessary given that he did not accept them all. Starting on p. 28, he affirms the testimony of all the plaintiffs’ experts. Scroll over each to see the brief summary of their testimony and then check out the decision to see all the credentials: Nancy Cott, George Chauncey, Lee Badgett, Edmund A Egan, Letitia Anne Peplau, Ilan Meyer, Gregory Herek, Michael Lamb, and Gary Segura.

Those Religious Studies Professors

Then (starting on p. 35), Judge Walker gets to the matter of the proponents’ witnesses. First he describes Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “experts” the proponents’ withdrew, but whose taped depositions were still submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs. What is remarkable is how—perhaps because they were withdrawn—their expertise and their testimony have little to do with each other (p. 36-37 citations omitted):

Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill University since 1978. She received her PhD in history of religions and comparative religions from McGill in 1978. Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples. Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. Nathanson CV. Nathanson is also a frequent lecturer on consequences of marriage for same-sex couples and on gender and parenting. Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Proponents made no effort to call Young or Nathanson to explain the deposition testimony that plaintiffs had entered into the record or to call any of the withdrawn witnesses after potential for contemporaneous broadcast of the trial proceedings had been eliminated.

This seemed an incredibly useful tactic by the plaintiffs’ legal team. It demonstrated that even if Young and Nathanson had testified at trial, their expertise on religioun would have been irrelevant to what we actually know about gays and lesbians.

Kenneth P Miller

I’m going to save David Blankenhorn for last, because he makes for a grander finale. Skipping down to p. 49, we see where Judge Walker considers the testimony of Kenneth P Miller, who plaintiffs contended did not have sufficient expertise to testify on the subject of the political power of gays and lesbians.

Miller received a PhD from the University of California (Berkeley) in 2002 in political science and is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. Plaintiffs contend that Miller lacks sufficient expertise to offer an opinion on the relative political power of gay men and lesbians. Having considered Miller’s background, experience and testimony, the court concludes that, while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power.

It seems that the proponents found a witness who was willing to say what they wanted him to say, but really had nothing to back it up. There are several pages where Judge Walker showed how Miller could not explain how his conclusions contradicted studies and reports submitted by the plaintiffs. My favorite was this one (p. 52):

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on data showing 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes on Proposition 8, 54 percent of those who attend church occasionally voted no on Proposition 8 and 83 percent of those who never attend church voted no on Proposition 8. Plaintiffs also asked about polling data showing 56 percent of those with a union member in the household voted yes on Proposition 8. Miller stated he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the polling data. Miller did not explain how the data in PX2853 are consistent with his conclusion that many religious groups and labor unions are allies of gays and lesbians.

It was also revealed that Miller was fed most of the documents he cited by the defense. I’ll let Judge Walker take us home on Miller’s testimony (p. 53-54):

The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he cited in his expert report. Furthermore, Miller undermined the credibility of his opinions by conceding that gays and lesbians currently face discrimination and that current discrimination is relevant to a group’s political power.

Miller’s credibility was further undermined because the opinions he offered at trial were inconsistent with the opinions he expressed before he was retained as an expert. Specifically, Miller previously wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process, contradicting his trial testimony that gays and lesbians are not politically vulnerable with respect to the initiative process. Miller admitted that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 based on anti-gay sentiment.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Miller’s opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence.

I think Judge Walker ought be applauded for his critical observations here.

Determining Expertise

Now, you might read all that and wonder, “So what exactly qualifies an expert?” Judge Walker will happily walk you through it.

First, we have Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (p. 39-40):

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness may be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” The testimony may only be admitted if it “is based upon sufficient facts or data” and “is the product of reliable principles and methods.” Expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, with a “basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.”

This is key language. The information provided has to, essentially, be scientifically valid and reliable. Scientific literacy is so vital to our society and we are fortunate that Judge Walker understands that. He goes on to say that formal training and peer-reviewed publications are not necessary, but speak to the intellectual rigor expected of an “expert.” However, the court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. So peer review is an effective way for the court to ensure that an expert’s methodology is sound.

Several factors are relevant to an expert’s reliability:

(1) “whether [a method] can be (and has been) tested”;

(2) “whether the [method] has been subjected to peer review and publication”;

(3) “the known or potential rate of error”;

(4) “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the [method’s] operation”;

(5) “a * * * degree of acceptance” of the method within “a relevant * * * community”;

(6) whether the expert is “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation”;

(7) whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion;

(8) whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations;

(9) whether the expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field”; and

(10) whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.

I know that kind of reads like gobbledygook, but each of those is a significant point in which the court upholds scientific thinking.

Essentially, the court holds (or should hold and has precedent to hold) experts accountable to their testimony. If their research isn’t accepted by their field or their conclusions don’t match their claims, they are violating the expertise they claim to have. This is so important, and I think we have to appreciate the way Judge Walker carefully meted out and considered all the facts in this case.

And why did he have to write this all out in the decision? Because of David Blankenhorn.

David Blankenhorn

You might think I’ve already beaten up on David Blankenhorn a bit too much. It’s not without irony that I was chastising his pity party yesterday just hours before the decision came down. But you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve seen the way Judge Walker eviscerated Blankenhorn’s testimony (p. 39):

Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it.” Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions. The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.

Ouch. That’s gotta hurt. And Walker says it a few more times, too. You see, Walker didn’t just dismiss Blankenhorn’s testimony; he took the time to dismantle it. (And there is a lot more detail in the decision than what I’ve excerpted here!)

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions on the definition of marriage (p. 43-44):

Blankenhorn’s interest and study on the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure are evident from the record, but nothing in the record other than the “bald assurance” of Blankenhorn suggests that Blankenhorn’s investigation into marriage has  been conducted to the “same level of intellectual rigor” characterizing the practice of anthropologists, sociologists or psychologists. Blankenhorn gave no explanation of the methodology that led him to his definition of marriage other than his review of others’ work.  The court concludes that Blankenhorn’s proposed definition of marriage is “connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit” of Blankenhorn and accordingly rejects it.

Strike One!

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions on the ideal family structure and children (p. 44-45):

Blankenhorn’s conclusion that married biological parents provide a better family form than married non-biological parents is not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to non-biological parents. Blankenhorn did not in his testimony consider any study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married adoptive parents. Blankenhorn did not testify about a study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married parents who conceived using an egg or sperm donor. The studies Blankenhorn relied on compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology. The studies may well support a conclusion that parents’ marital status may affect child outcomes. The studies do not, however, support a conclusion that the biological connection between a parent and his or her child is a significant variable for child outcomes. The court concludes that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Blankenhorn’s reliance on biology is unsupported by evidence, and the court therefore rejects his conclusion that a biological link between parents and children influences children’s outcomes.

Strike Two!

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions that same-sex marriage will lead to the “deinstitutionalization of marriage” (p. 48-49):

Blankenhorn stated he opposes marriage for same-sex couples because it will weaken the institution of marriage, despite his recognition that at least thirteen positive consequences would flow from state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples, including: (1) by increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage
might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more children growing up in loving adoptive and foster families; and (2) same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships.

Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.

Strike Three! You’re Out!

The problem with Blankenhorn isn’t just that he speaks out against the rights of gays and lesbians. It’s that he’s wrong. Like so many believers, he puts the cart before the horse, and thus looks for studies that support his opinion instead of drawing opinions from studies.

I hope he sees this decision as an important check on his credibility as well as the authenticity of the work coming out of his so-called Institute for American Values.

Ultimately, science won this case. There is no getting around the solid facts about sexual orientation that make it quite clear that Proposition 8 was discriminatory and wrong. Anyone who disagrees needs a lesson in science.

For in-depth looks at the decision, I recommend:

» Chris Geidner
» Shannon Minter and Christopher Stoll from NCLR
» Ari Ezra Waldman
» Nan Hunter

Looking to see what various people thought of the decision? Towleroad has an extensive list of reactions, both positive and negative. If you really want to see all the ugly negative ones, Pam and Louise have those.

Need to be reminded that our President is not a fierce advocate and is not a supporter of same-sex marriage? Read Joe Sudbay’s response to the anonymous White House aide and then today’s piece about David Axelroad on The Hill. If that’s not enough, read more on Politico, The Washington Post, and FiveThirtyEight. Most importantly, go here and sign the open letter to the President to get his head out of his appeasing-the-religious ass. (The letter words it more nicely than that.)

Need a constant flow of information about the case? The Prop 8 Trial Tracker is still hard at work.

On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann showed an encore of his special comment about love from November 2008. Rachel talked to Boies and Olson and also spent another segment showing how flawed the proponents’ arguments were. (Thanks to AMERICAblog for the links.)

Look ahead with Evan Wolfson to what’s next for Freedom to Marry.

Lastly, watch these two videos. The first is a video showing the reaction when folks first heard the results of the decision. The second then follows Vanessa Judicpa & Maria Ydil as they attempt to get a marriage license during the brief window before Judge Walker’s temporary stay.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJfz0cTQS8

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6hP9nvgzDE

DEFENDERS OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE TO APPEAL FEDERAL RULING INVALIDATING PROPOSITION 8

SACRAMENTO – Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pugno must have missed the part where Walker wrote, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’” We can thank the Jehovah’s Witnesses for that precedent.

It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

Actually, the court doesn’t say that. What he says is that the proponents of Prop 8 had discriminatory intent, which they spread through fear-based propaganda that fed into untrue stereotypes. The law is discriminatory, whether the voters understood it to be or not. (See Findings of Fact 45, 47, and 57-68, 79, and 80.)

But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.

At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.

It’s a cute line, but it’s simply not true. The experts’ testimony showed that the “traditional definition of marriage” was quite shortsighted and that given the equality of individuals in marriages, there is no compelling interest in maintaining only opposite-sex marriages. (See Findings of Fact 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, among others.)

It’s amazing (but unsurprising) that Protect Marriage continues to encourage the evil misperception that gay and lesbians put children at risk. (See  Findings of Fact 70, 71, 72, 76, and 79.)

We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.

You mean like how your star witness’s testimony was thrown out?

Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

Andy, did they not teach you at McGeorge School of Law that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the whim of a simple majority? (I’d be embarrassed to be a McGeorge alum today!)

And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.

Actually, after today’s decision, that is simply wrong. Today’s decision affirmed that marriage is a constitutional right and that to prohibit same-sex marriage is simply to discriminate based on sex and sexual orientation. There is nothing new in this decision except validation for the lives of gays and lesbians throughout time and space.

Best of luck to Andy Pugno and the Protect Marriage team. You’re going to need it.

By the way, I don’t believe in luck.

These concise points address the information presented in trial amazingly. They are straight-forward and compelling. Here is, essentially, what everyone should learn from this trial. The facts stack up nicely, but get particularly interesting—I think—starting down at #38.

All emphasis in green is my own and I have omitted citations for ease of reading,  but page numbers are provided. I have included the whole list, but I think people ought to pay particular attention to the following: 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 76, and 77; I have highlighted those numbers as facts I think are particularly compelling and noteworthy.

Let’s dig in (p. 54).

The Players

The first 13 or so facts simply outline the players in the case (many of whom are players in name only). Scroll over each for a description: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, San Francisco, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G Brown, Jr, Mark B Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O’Connell, Dean C Logan, and the Defendant-Intervenors.

Now we learn a little bit more about who these folks are who promoted Proposition 8:

14. Proponents dedicated substantial time, effort, reputation and personal resources in campaigning for Proposition 8. (p. 57)

15. Proponents established ProtectMarriage.com —— Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (“Protect Marriage”) as a “primarily formed ballot measure committee” under California law. (p. 57)

16. The Protect Marriage Executive Committee includes Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark A Jansson and Doug Swardstrom. Andrew Pugno acts as General Counsel. David Bauer is the Treasurer and officer of record for Protect Marriage. (p. 57)

17. Protect Marriage was responsible for all aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law. (p. 58)

18. Protect Marriage is a “broad coalition” of individuals and organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “LDS Church”), the California Catholic Conference and a large number of evangelical churches. (p. 59)

This description of Protect Marriage is important. It recognizes who was involved, what they tried to do, and how they were financially supported.

Should California Refuse to Recognize A Couple’s Marriage Because Of Their Sex?

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law. (p. 60)

20. A person may not marry unless he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage. (p. 60)

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate. (p. 60)

Given that the entire case is about the right to marry, Walker walks us through the way that marriage is defined and has been defined throughout history.

22. When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife. (p. 61)

23. The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained. (p. 61)

24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could not marry each other. (p. 61)

25. Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution in 1967. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of his or her chosen partner. (p. 62)

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain. (p. 62)

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family. (p. 63)

28. The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages and allowed spouses to define their own roles within a marriage. (p. 64)

We can see how other forms of identity were used in defining marriage in the past.

29. In 1971, California amended Cal Civ Code § 4101, which had previously set the age of consent to marriage at twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females, to read “[a]ny unmarried person of the age of 18 years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” (p. 65)

30. In the 1970s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in California, relying on the amended language in Cal
Civ Code § 4101. In response, the legislature in 1977 amended the marriage statute, former Cal Civ Code § 4100, to read “[m]arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman * * *.”  That provision became Cal Fam Code § 300. The legislative history of the enactment supports a conclusion that unique roles of a man and a woman in marriage motivated legislators to enact the amendment. (p. 65)

The “tradition” of one-man/one-woman marriages is very much founded upon not just gender roles, but gender inequality.

31. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Family Code violated the California Constitution to the extent the statutes reserve the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples.  The language “between a man and a woman” was stricken from section 300, and section 308.5 (Proposition 22) was stricken in its entirety. (p. 66)

32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependants. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. (p. 66)

This is an important question. If all the other changes to marriage have removed gender imbalances, why does California still require a man and a woman?

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality. (p. 66)

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents. (p. 67)

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state: (p. 67-68)

Here Judge Walker offers six benefits: a) cohesive family units, b) liberty, intimacy, and free decision-making for spouses, c) stable households, d) legitimating children, e) assigning care-providers, and f) facilitating property ownership.

36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs. (p. 68)

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents. (p. 68)

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals. (p. 69)

Number 38 is important, because it’s the first (of many to come) that establishes psychological and sociological research as facts in the case. Here are a few more:

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses. (p. 70)

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity. (p. 70)

41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children. (p. 71)

I think it’s pivotal that the decision recognizes the intangible benefits of marriage.

Should California Differentiate Between Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Unions?

This section outlines a lot of important history about the gay community as well as information about same-sex couples. Important definitions are entered into the record as fact regarding the nature of sexual orientation.

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century. (p. 71)

43. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives. (p. 71-72)

YES! Sexual orientation refers to which sex a person is attracted to, not which sex a person is attracted to in reference to their own.

44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence. (p. 72)

45. Proponents’ campaign for Proposition 8 assumed voters understood the existence of homosexuals as individuals distinct from heterosexuals. (p. 73)

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. (p. 74)

I think there is incredible power in the stipulation of these qualities as facts. This essentially puts the legal kibosh (for the sake of at least this particular ruling) on any debate about whether sexual orientation is a choice.

47. California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (p. 76)

48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. (p. 77)

49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children. (p. 78)

50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive. (p. 79)

51. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. (p. 79)

This kind of makes me laugh, but also makes me sad for all the sham marriages out there motivated by internalized homophobia.

Domestic Partnerships

One could easily insert “civil union” for DP in each of these statements and the same would be true. But, California has never had civil unions.

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. (p. 80)

53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government. (p. 81)

54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. (p. 82)

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages. (p.83)

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry. (p. 84)

Did Prop 8 Enact a Private Moral View Without Advancing a Legitimate Government Interest?

57. Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has no other legal effect. (p. 85)

58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. (p. 85)

59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. (p. 86)

60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples. (p. 86)

61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage. (p. 87)

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples. (p. 89)

63.  Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. (p. 90)

64. Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments. (p. 90)

65. [The City and County of San Francisco] would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in effect. (p. 91)

66. Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs. (p. 91)

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. (p. 93)

68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships. (p. 94)

Yes, the stigma against same-sex couples is now part of court record.

Same-Sex Couples as Parents

69. The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources. (p. 94-95)

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. (p. 95)

Seriously, read that one again. Not only does the evidence show that same-sex couples make good parents, but the question is not even up for debate.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted. (p. 95)

72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. (p. 96)

73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships. (p. 96)

Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination. (p. 96)

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States. (p. 97)

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes. (p. 98)

77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (p. 101)

78. Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians. (p. 103)

Can you feel the validation, folks?

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that  parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. (p. 105)

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. (p. 108)

So there you have it! THOSE ARE THE FACTS. If you have any question as to why this decision is what it is, it should be answerable by those facts. If you don’t like those facts, tough. You cannot disagree with them; they are facts.

Proposition 8 is unconstitutional!

According to the decision, it violates both due process and equal protection. The decision is brimming with amazing detail about the lives of gays and lesbians and will certainly serve as precedent for the future of our movement.

While in the past, I have covered court decisions in one long sweeping post, I think I will handle this decision in several posts over the next 36 hours or so. Here is what you can expect to see here on ZackFord Blogs tonight and tomorrow:

» The Conclusions of the Case
» The 80 Facts
» Defining Expertise
» Follow-up discussion re: my adoption post

History has been made today, and I hope you’ll take the time to understand why. Stay tuned.

Blankenhorn is a cry-baby-sissy-pants. He claims this week that he’s been unfairly targeted for his anti-gay views:

“I’m losing friends, being told I’m on the wrong side of history, I’m like Bull Connor,” he said, referring to the top Birmingham, Alabama law enforcement official who in the 1960s used police dogs and fire hoses to attack pro-integration protesters. Blankenhorn has been mocked in the gay blogosphere.

“This is the single worst experience I have had in my public life,” he said of joining the debate over same-sex marriage. “I dreaded getting into it… I tried to avoid it for a long time. I feel like the issue hunted me down.”

If you can recognize that you are comparable to Bull Connor for your actions, where do you get off asking for sympathy? I didn’t hear any apology.

The aspect I found most galling about Blankenhorn’s remarks is this attempt to reach a hand out in pseudo-friendship with passive-aggressive umbrage:

“I just think you’ve got to be careful when you seek to deduce a person’s, when you seek to deduce homophobia or anti-gay views from a person’s policy position,” he said. “It can be a real act of hubris.”

This is what Blankenhorn must “wrestle with,” he said, to distinguish between himself and those who dislike homosexuals. When he has spoken to groups made up of such people, he tells them he does not share their anti-gay views.

Oh, so you like us?

Honestly, why should that matter?

Here’s the thing… you either understand the whole “being gay” thing or you don’t. If you understand, then you support gay rights. If you don’t understand, then you oppose gay rights. That might seem a bit boilerplate, but it’s the truth. It doesn’t matter if you like us. It only matters if your head is screwed on tight.

If you like us, great! Then you shouldn’t be working against us. If you’re working against us, that means you don’t understand us (or you refuse to). If you claim to like us, then you should work harder to understand us. You should take time to listen. You should respect the plethora of research from mainstream social science organizations (APA, etc.). You should care more about the lives we lead than the artificially constructed values you “put before the horse.”

David Blankenhorn wants to be right and to be liked. He’s currently neither. Distinguishing himself from Maggie Gallagher or James Dobson doesn’t make a difference. He’s still wrong about our lives and he is still working against our equality. The distinctions he makes in a plea for sympathy are moot and a bit pathetic.

Honestly, he and Tony Hayward should hang out. Maybe they can help each other get their lives back.

Of course, I will be providing a thorough reading with excerpts for those who want to see some of the language of the decision without scouring through the (what is sure to be a) monstrosity of a document. You can expect that up later tonight.

It should come as no surprise that the blogosphere is humming with anticipation. There is a lot of content out there. If you’re prone to seizures, you might just want to stay away from the #prop8 Twitter hashtag entirely.

Here are a few basics you need for today:

» List of today’s rallies. Kudos to Rex Wockner for keeping this updated all day.

» Decision Day FAQ. If you’ve been living in a cave, Chris Geidner is here to make sure you know why today’s a big day.

» Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Eden James has a nice summary to catch us up to today.

There is a LOT of other content out there, but the most important thing is that you understand what is happening today and its significance. This was the first time LGBT issues and our community’s history were aired in a public forum, and Judge Walker’s decision will be an indication of the progress we’ve made given the discrimination we’ve endured.

Sure, given appeals, the war is not over. Still, today could still be a game-changing victory, because if we win, people will ask why. It’s an important opportunity to take a big step forward in raising awareness and creating visibility. And as we move forward, we have reason and love on our sides.

If you want a good laugh, take a look at the argument made by the defense to try to stay today’s ruling?

» Prop. 8 proponents file hilariously awkward motion

As always, you can revisit the archive of Prop 8 coverage here on ZFb to get day-by-day accounts of what took place in the trial.

And while we wait, you should pray. Don’t just pray because it’s the most productive thing you can do, pray because some blonde from ADF told you to:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqx4oW9nYo0

On the other hand, you could just look forward to the feeling of not being less than:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDbzYMXXpCM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOUdMuuCvls

It has to be the most truth-stretched, platitude-filled 3 minutes of propaganda I’ve ever seen. The Democrats have been the most unproactive allies they possibly could have been over the past two years.

And frankly, that’s all I have to say on the matter.

This is a post about making sausage. If you are in any way involved in queer activism, I hope you’ll at least give it some thought.

Let’s say you want to dedicate a certain portion of your life to supporting LGBT equality. You have a number of options. The most common option, I expect, would be that individuals volunteer. They sing in a gay men’s chorus, they spend some time volunteering in their LGBT community center, they help organize Pride festivals or other events, etc. These are individuals who are sustaining themselves financially through jobs not related to LGBT work who find extra time to help the movement.

For others, the priority might be higher. Some might be eager and ready to dedicate their whole lives to LGBT work. They look for jobs in LGBT campus centers (like I am), or go work for organizations in the movement like HRC or NGLTF, or find other ways locally to devote themselves. Some might even be full-time activists who are financially supported for the work they do blogging, speaking, or organizing direct action. (I doubt there are many examples of people who can support themselves as full-time bloggers; certainly only the most-trafficked would be capable of doing so.)

So that raises the question: Should people get paid for LGBT work? A student by the name of Nonnie Ouch at Texas Tech doesn’t think so, and wrote a letter lambasting Lt. Dan Choi for charging too much for his speaking engagements:

However, I’ve lost all respect for you as a gay- and human-rights activist. In the course of my two short years as an activist in the communities I have lived in, I have met amazing people such as Irene Andrews, C.d. Kirven and Michael Robinson, who travel from city to city, state to state with their own money and ask NOTHING from those who request their speaking services. These people, like myself, live, breath and eat queer activism. They live to inspire others. They live to show the compassion of love to others. They have not lost sight of what is truly important here: equality for all.

You, sir, have lost sight in one of those many $10,000 checks written to you, of why you came out and became an activist in the first place. Remember, Lt. Choi? LOVE IS WORTH IT. LOVE is worth cutting a deal to poor college kids in an extremely conservative city who’s only desire is to make headway in their community. LOVE is worth sacrificing money to give my friends and others who are currently serving in silence the hope to remember they are worth it. Love isn’t made by money. Love isn’t made by your agent, Alec Melman. Love isn’t tangible when you’re suffocated by greed as you are. Love is constantly flowing through the heart and brain. Love is giving. Love isn’t defined by financial status, color, gender, creed, age or sexual orientation.

Now, I cannot speak to Nonnie’s experience trying to book Dan nor the treatment received from Dan’s agent. Nonetheless, I’m going to say here that I think Nonnie’s comments are out of line and ignore the reality of our movement.

Where there is money in our movement, it is concentrated. Joe Solmonese can wear his fancy suits and host his posh cocktail parties while others are doing their best with grassroots activism and direct action that is essentially unfunded. Joe can afford to take time from his work duties to travel while other activists are taking time off for their activism. I think a lot of folks fall somewhere in the middle.

Gays aren’t rich. We don’t all have posh lofts in NYC a la Will Truman. A lot of us are scraping by. There is a limit to how much we can do before we need to get paid if we’re going to do anymore. Certainly, there are “professional volunteers” doing as much as—if not more than—many who are gay for pay. They can afford to.

Nonnie mentions people who travel “with their own money.” Where does that money come from? It seems to me there is an incredible assumption of socioeconomic privilege in that statement. There’s just this expectation that people should have money (from where?) and all the activism should be on them.

Well, that’s not realistic. Some people make their living on the speaker circuit. Some work for the movement and depend upon it for their livelihood. And like it or not, the stereotype that the gay community is well off permeates within the community as well. In many ways, the vision we have of a worthwhile activist is someone who can afford to take the time and can still look good doing the work.

Now, there is a lot we don’t know about this story. We don’t know if Dan has any other source of income. We don’t know how Dan plans to use the money. We don’t know what constraints the agent has put on the booking. I think it is safe to say that Dan’s goal is not to focus on speaking. Maybe he doesn’t want to speak much and the agent thinks because of his “celebrity” status that $10,000 is what schools ought to pay to bring in Dan. We’re not privy to those details, but I think the ambiguity about it all speaks to the rashness of Nonnie’s letter.

Dan is just a person, like the rest of us. He sacrificed his career to further our movement, and surely he brought a lot of positive attention to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in a way no one ever really has. I would go so far as to say we owe him, particularly considering he has continued to work on our behalf. He’s not getting a military paycheck anymore; we know that much.

I’m willing to give Dan the benefit of the doubt. Is his cost to speak high? Yes. But it is what it is. It’s not like Dan is living the high and glamorous life of the HRC execs. As far as I know, he’s just trying to get by. Is every school going to be able to afford to bring him? Maybe not. But plenty have, and I was lucky enough to see one of those engagements. They build coalitions on campus, work with neighboring campuses, and they make it work.

I’m sorry it didn’t work out at Texas Tech, but is Dan to blame? I don’t think so. I’m sure Nonnie feels disappointed that the efforts to bring Dan were in vain, and maybe there was disrespect on the agent’s part. It’s not inconceivable. But Dan is a big celebrity right now. There are a ton of great people who are local or less A-list that could have easily been just as powerful and inspiring to the campus community. It’s not Dan’s fault that Dan is doing what Dan needs to do for Dan. Even if Dan’s cost or his agent’s dealings are out of line, Dan is human and can learn and grow. It is out of line to suggest that something this inane compromises all of his previous and continued activism.

If anything, Nonnie’s comments perhaps speak to a sense of entitlement, suggesting Dan hasn’t done enough and he now needs to give even more for the Texas Tech community. This just does not seem fair to what Dan has already done for us.

We have to get to a point where we appreciate the need for balance. There are those in the movement who depend on the movement’s support just to keep afloat while others leech more than they need. Ultimately, I think it’s more important that we measure activists by what they accomplish and what they give. If they’re taking more than they’ve earned, that’s one thing. But it’s not Lt. Dan Choi.

Peterson and Zack come out to the movies! Get it? Come out? Today they discuss the new film “The Kids Are All Right,” starring Annette Bening and Julianne Moore as a lesbian couple whose kids make contact with their interloping sperm donor. “Outraged” is also on topic as the Queer and Queerer duo reflect back on discussions about political outing now that they’ve seen the film. Below, in the notes are suggestions from friends and listeners about all kinds of amazing queer films to check out! Never underestimate the power of film.

For our 20th episode, we want you to ask us ANY questions you have. Start submitting them now on Twitter or at zackfordblogs@gmail.com. We’ll remind you again next week.

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

» The Lesbian Mafia interview with Kirby Dick, director of Outraged

» The Lesbian Mafia Review of The Kids Are All Right

» Dan Savage “The Stranger” Podcast – Ep. 197: discussing lesbians who “go straight”

» Steve Hayes The Tired Old Queen at the Movies The Celluloid Closet Peterson queried people via Facebook and Twitter:

For LGBTIQ folks & Allies: What film(s) has been helpful to you in coming out/becoming an ally.

Here are some responses:

• lilithvf1998 … Um, almost every film with a supposed trans character in it has made me reconsider coming out. Dare I list them all? Rocky Horror? The Crying Game? Silence Of The Lambs? Ticked-Off Tr*nn**s With Knives? There has yet to be a film positive enough
• mayanorange A Single Man is a really beautiful love story that rings true… it transcends genders involved, doesn’t bow to stereotypes, etc…
• SabrinaGeek would love to find films to show her mom. Best she found so far is Transamerica
• lilithvf1998 replies: I can’t even endorse that one FWIW. The closest I can manage is The World According To Garp–and not even then really.
• SabrinaGeek I especially need to avoid docs that show cases of violence / abuse/ death as they will trigger my mom- almost non-existant!
• JTWilliamson I really enjoyed the movie Latter Days

From Facebook

• Chloë, Jude & Oshee: Ma Vie En Rose–Belgian film about a family’s struggle to accept their child’s gender.
• Immanuel : I don’t know if it counts, but there was a tv serial in Sweden called Dårfinkar & dönickar when I was a kid. It’s about Simon/Simone, a “girl” who is “mistaken” for a boy when “she” moves to a new school. Simon and Brandon Teena in Boys Don’t Cry were the only FTM role models available for many years. It’s depressing to think of Brandon Teena’s fate, so I’ve identified a lot with effeminate guys instead, like Billy Elliot. Not MTF characters, but male-identified sissies.
• Karen : You know, my mind went back over a lot of great movies (“Latter Days” is a favorite.) But when I tried to think about when I was first becoming an ally, back in the wayback, what popped into my mind was Billy Crystal’s portrayal of a gay …man in the TV show Soap. It was so moving and sympathetic. I hadn’t realized it until now, but looking back, I know that made an impact. About that same time was a made-for-TV movie called That Certain Summer, about a boy whose dad was coming out as gay. I think that probably affected my outlook too. A movie I saw recently that might be helpful is called Inlaws and Outlaws.
• Jude : Before Night Falls
• Michael : The Wizard of Oz, Making Love, In and Out.
• Deric : Raspberry Reich. A little artsy, but hearing Marcuse being quoted while two cute guys got it on was particularly stirring for this radical queer.
• Micah : But I’m a Cheerleader, Saved, and Fish Can’t Fly (not just sucking up, I swear! )
• John : Paris is Burning.
• Roger : A made for TV movie that is now out on DVD Doing Time on Maple Drive with a great cast too.
• David : Maurice (1986). Bloody brilliant film based on the novel by EM Forster, inspired by his own experience as a closeted gay man in Edwardian England. It was written around the time of WWI, but was never published until after his death, in the …1970s. The film gave me the courage to come out. The filmmakers were Ismael Merchant and James Ivory (A Room with a View, Howard’s End etc), who were real-life romantic partners. Ismael sadly died in 2005.
• Steve : Steve Flower Making Love, Torch Song Trilogy, An Early Frost (first AIDS movie I remembered). Broken Hearts Club, an indie film titled Shelter, Latter Days (a big one, for anyone with a religious background), Beautiful Thing, Edge of Seventeen. I was a junkie for teen coming out movies, even though I was 48 when I started to come out
• Kellie : TV rather than film but I have a huge diary entry from when I was a teenager watching ‘My So Called Life‘ and it had a massive impact on making me question the official Christian line on being gay. I loved Ricky so much I couldn’t accept the idea that God wouldn’t love him too :O) That’s when I first became an ally, aged 14.
• Shirley : Kellie I also loved Ricky. That episode about him and the drama teacher! What a wonderful wee actor. Wonder what he’s doing now.
• Oshee : More of my favorites: Canadian movie about a professor at a Christian college falling in love with another woman]; Different For Girls (British movie about a Trans Woman); Normal (American movie about a Trans Woman coming out later in life); Better Than Chocolate (Canadian movie with a whole cast of LGBT characters)
• Tom : The scene in Cabaret when Brian (Michael York), as the Baron lights his cigarette and they hold on to that gesture and touch for just a split second longer than would others — and I just knew what that was “code’ for. Recently saw C.R.A.Z.Y., and while not exactly my experience, much of it was pretty close and there were enough similarities that it brought back some bittersweet and difficult memories. Not to mention that could have been my wardrobe the main character wears as he comes of age. Scary!
• Fran : ‎For the Bible Tells Me So– documentary interviewing young gays and lesbians and their families, talking about how they have dealt with their sexuality. Really wonderful discussions about the Bible and gays– and some heart wrenching stories as well. Highly recommended, and a great place to start a discussion with a mixed group.
• Katie : Orlando, and Wonder Boys
• Melanie : I loved Antonia’s Line, a beautiful Dutch film about a matriarch and her family, including a lesbian daughter.
• Casey : Fish Can’t Fly
• Val: Saving Face and Imagine Me and You
• Carlos : As trite or antiquated as it may sound, Boys in the Band. Oh, and Get Real.
• Jake : Later Days
• Oliver : Chutney Popcorn (great lesbian film)
• Angela : Claire of the Moon, Go Fish, and Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love (more great lesbian films)
• Oshee : Some more : Desert Hearts and Female Perversions” starring the fabulous Tilda Swinton
• Twister : Show Me Love (Fucking Åmål)
• Sadelle : Pouquoi pas moi
• Jenessa : Imagine Me and You and Fire

Peterson and Zack are back together in the Sunbury studio! After some reflections on their conference experiences, they delve into the antics of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and their “Summer Marriage Tour.” How do we respond to their self-victimizing tactics and what is the future of the marriage equality movement? Petersonalso shares his experience confronting a bride-to-be and her maid of honor that chose a gay club for their bachelorette outing. Join them as they rip apart the very fabric of traditional marriage.

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

» Freedom To Marry

» NOM’s Self-victimizing fake news story.

» “The Solution to Gay Marriage” as seen in Indianpolis.

» Join Equality Pennsylvania and the LGBT Community Center for the Harrisburg response to NOM.

» Town Danceboutique in Washington, DC

Are you surprised? A lot of people are when I reveal this super intimate detail. “Oh,  I didn’t know,” they say.

To answer your other questions: I’ve always known, and I have no interest in meeting my genetic parents. My parents are my parents and I love them very much. Oh, and yes, I do like to pretend I might be the second coming of Christ. (How do you know I’m not?)

But let’s step back. What was with that reaction to the news that I’m an adoptee? Do folks have have certain expectations about adoptees that are disrupted by my coming out? Did they expect it would somehow be obvious, or that if they knew me well enough it would be something they could tell?

The funniest (or not so funny, as I’ll be exploring below) moments are when folks will tell my mom how much I look like her. (I don’t know—we’re both tall, I guess.) She’ll just smile and say, “Well, actually, Zack was adopted.” They immediately get embarrassed and apologetic. I don’t think it’s just because they realize their assumption was wrong; I think there’s some disappointment there. There is an inherent expectation that I have some special connection to my parents that they now know I don’t have. (By the way, you can see from my pic that I really don’t look at all like my father. Sorry, Dad!)

The most recent assessment of attitudes about adoption revealed that there is still a lot of stigma in our society—probably more than you think. The 2002 National Adoption Attitudes Survey (PDF) found some startling results about public perceptions. Unsurprisingly, folks have greater concerns about young people who’ve been through foster care, but even some of the numbers for adopted-at-birth children are disconcerting. A third think we adoptees are less likely to be well-adjusted or self-confident, and a fifth think we’re less likely to be happy.

Well-adjusted… well-adjusted… why does that sound familiar?

Oh, right. It’s the argument used against same-sex adoption. In fact, a lot of the opponents of gay adoption will often say things like, “A child does best with his or her birth parents.” Or as Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel recently said, gay parenting is not “in the best interest of the child.” (Handel has a runoff election for the Republican candidacy coming up on August 10, in case you’re curious.)

No voice has been more virulent against gay adoption recently than that of Bill McCollum. As the Florida Attorney General, he pushed for the hiring of George Rekers to testify on behalf of Florida’s ban on gay adoption. (Rekers, you may recall, is a fan of rentboy “luggage carriers”, suggesting that his anti-gay views aren’t so legitimate—as if any are.) Now that McCollum is running for governor, he’s struggling to defend the $87,000+ in taxpayer dollars used to cover Rekers’ not-so-expertly expenses. Here’s the latest from McCollum:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJPCoqylR1g

I don’t believe the gay family model is good for the kids. First of all, it’s my religious views and my principles, so I’m just personally against it. I’m not going to argue with you further the merits; there’s no point in it. You and I perhaps disagree, but I just don’t think it’s a good model.

Now, of course, when it comes to gay and lesbian adoption, there is the added stickiness of archaic gender expectations. But fundamentally, most people who speak against adoption by same-sex couples use the same language that stigmatizes all adoptions. This is how we need to frame the debate.

If you’re curious, another study came out this week confirming that children of lesbian and gay couples do just as well (news article and PDF of the study). Here’s what researchers at the University of Virgina learned (p. 11-12):

Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents. We found no significant differences among families headed by lesbian, gay, or heterosexual parents in terms of child adjustment, parenting behaviors, or couples’ adjustment. In addition, reports of children’s outside caregivers were consistent with those of  parents. It is important to note in particular that gay fathers and their children appeared to be faring as well as were lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. These findings add to the very limited existing research on gay fathers and their children, as well as to the relatively sparse research on adoptive families with lesbian and gay parents. In all, our results both lend support to earlier research with lesbian- and gay-parented families, and extend these findings to adoptive and gay-father families.

While it’s nice to see some confirmation (finally!) for our gay dads, this study is nothing new. There have been many that show the same thing. Some even show that children of same-sex couples do better than children of heterosexual couples.

But these studies aren’t going to shift the argument. You see, I think people who oppose gay adoption oppose all adoption. They might not even realize it, but there’s definitely bias there. It’s no different than when John Briggs tried to ban gay teachers by suggesting they were pedophiles. Harvey Milk pointed out to him that heterosexuals were just as likely to be pedophiles, so it was a moot point. Still, Briggs thought it good reason to attack the gays (and the Catholic Church still does). Just as folks who oppose gay pedophiles oppose all pedophiles, folks who oppose gay adoption oppose all adoption. It’s the same exact scapegoating of gays and lesbians.

The proof is obvious. Look at David Blankenhorn, “star” witness for the defense of Prop 8. He supports gay adoption. He said as much at the trial. We shouldn’t be surprised. I’m sure, among all the goofy literature and pseudo-research he works with at his Institute for American Values, there have to be a few nuggets of truth. He sees how adoption can be good, and so can’t come up with a reason why gay adoption is bad.

Our problem isn’t people against gay adoption. Our problem is people against adoption. It’s the little bit of privilege and stigma revealed by the surprise when I tell someone I’m adopted—as if it’s some big deal (it’s not). People don’t trust adoption, and they use it as an excuse to attack same-sex couples in their family.

Next time you hear someone challenging gay adoption, go through all the motions. Remind them of all the data that proves they’re wrong. Show them pictures of loving families (like Scott, Robert, and Riley who I met at the National Equality March). Correct all their assumptions about the importance of gender roles. But then, make sure you also challenge them on adoption in general. The attacks on gay adoption aren’t just hurting same-sex couples; they hurt all of us connected to adoption and all the children waiting to be adopted.

Another counseling student is challenging a university’s graduate counseling program, suggesting that her personal beliefs against homosexuality should be exempted despite contradicting the teachings of the program.

This time, it’s Jennifer Keeton at Augusta State University, and AFA and the ADF are not pleased!

“It’s in essence [telling her] ‘you do not have the correct beliefs, we are going to re-educate you into the correct beliefs,’” explains David French, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. “And unless she completes this — quote — ‘remediation plan’ to their satisfaction, then she can be thrown out of [the school's counseling program].”

That’s exactly right.

This is religious privilege in its purest form, folks. The university teaches one idea. Keeton holds another. The two are in conflict. If Keeton wants the university degree, she has to learn why the university’s is right and hers is wrong. It just so happens that hers is religious, so suddenly she gets a free ride? No.

This OneNewsNow story is rife with spin. The program wanted Keeton to go to a pride parade and then reflect on what she saw. That’s a perfectly valid exercise, one—I might add—I did in my own counseling class! In order to be good practitioners, we folks in the social sciences have to reflect on our own perspectives in order to better appreciate and nurture the folks we work with. THAT’S HOW IT WORKS.

“Jennifer is not interested in being indoctrinated, she wants to be educated,” states the attorney. “She wants to learn about the counseling profession, she wants to be a good counselor — but being a good counselor does not require that one surrender their most fundamental religious beliefs.”

Well, let’s see… if she did not abandon her beliefs, she’d be a bad counselor. So, yeah, actually, it does.

She’s already been indoctrinated. Now she needs to be educated. There’s something seriously wrong with people who want to be taken seriously in the academy but don’t want to be exposed to new knowledge.

Given the precedent set by Julea Ward’s suit in Michigan, I doubt Keeton will get very far. Still, I’m sure the religious right will hem and haw about what a big deal this is, because they don’t care about the integrity of knowledge, intellect, or the academy.

One of these days, university folks are going to realize the importance of being proactive instead of just playing defense to all this stupid religious nonsense.

…

Oh, and by the way, if you want to “take action,” the AFA suggests you pray for Jennifer and the ADF staff, give a donation for her legal efforts, and email President Willian Bloodworth and the Georgia Board of Regents. I suggest you email the President yourself and encourage him not to submit to the foolishness of religious privilege.

Have you heard the tale of Julea Ward? She was working on her master’s in counseling at Eastern Michigan University. When she refused on religious grounds to affirm a client’s same-sex behavior (and thus counsel him at all), she was asked to leave the program.

Today, a federal judge dismissed her lawsuit against the university:

In an order granting summary judgment to the university on Monday, Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court in Detroit held that the university’s requirement that the student be willing to serve people who are homosexual was reasonable, and did not amount to an infringement of the Christian student’s constitutional rights to free speech and free expression of religion.

The university “had a right and duty to enforce compliance” with professional ethics rules barring counselors from being intolerant or engaging in discrimination, and no reasonable person could conclude that a counseling program’s requirement that students comply with such rules “conveys a message endorsing or disapproving of religion,” Judge Steeh wrote.

This is an important victory for the LGBT community as well as the social sciences. It’s affirmation that our professional ethics are important and that we will not cater to those who think their religious beliefs are more important than a client’s health and well being.

The good ol’ Alliance Defense Fund, of course, is eager to disagree:

“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said David French, a senior counsel for the group, which helped out in a similar lawsuit filed against Augusta State University, in Georgia, this month.

Maybe not, but any student who rejects the teaching and training of a curriculum does not deserve to graduate from it, religious beliefs be damned.

The Chronicle article outlines well the ways that Ward violated the professional ethics she was supposed to be learning:

To maintain accreditation through the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, the program that Ms. Ward was in is required to familiarize its students with the ethics codes set forth by the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association. In refusing to affirm the homosexual behavior of clients, Ms. Ward was accused of violating various provisions of the groups’ ethics codes, including prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation and an American Counseling Association rule holding that its members should not demonstrate “an inability to tolerate different points of view.”

The Alliance Defense Fund paints a rosier picture of Ward’s experiences, including a pity party that she had to face a faculty panel “alone, without family, friends, or legal support.” Welcome to the real world, dear.

The ruling said, “Her refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program.”

Case closed. Personal religious beliefs don’t trump academic requirements nor professional standards.

Why do I suspect that Ward is now just going to go to Liberty and get a “counseling” degree there that has NARTH’s stamp of approval?

If you want a little more propaganda in your life, here’s an ADF video about Julea and the tough way she was treated. Have a tissue handy—the soft focus will irritate your eyes.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsfcqKlL5s

One of the greatest aspects of being at Netroots Nation was connecting with the bloggers that have been my role models. I could look at my RSS feeds and look around the room and see the writers who generate the content I look to everyday.

In the case of meeting Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God, there was an unexpected perk!

Joe posted about the fact that we were in the same hotel as the Chippendales show. It turns out the show’s publicist, Randy Slovacek, is a fan of Joe’s blog (how could you not be?) and invited him (and those of us lucky enough to be standing in earshot when he got the news) to come to the show.

Now, before I say anything else about the show, I’ll say this. Its primary audience is the ladies, and they eat it up! In fact, their drunken bachelorette/birthday antics are as much a part of the entertainment as the men themselves. But—and Randy was insistent about this point—the show is extremely welcoming of gay men. I can testify that this is the case.

Randy had our little #lgbtnn10 contingent set up towards the back, in what was apparently the Olivia Newton-John booth. We thought this was for the best, as we didn’t want to get in the way of the ladies in the audience having a good time. (This may have also been in the best interest of our physical safety.) I would encourage this tactic for other gay men who choose to attend, but trust me, you’ll still enjoy the show.

I laughed pretty much the whole time. My face hurt by the end. It was an incredibly entertaining evening.

Now, I don’t know what you all know about Chippendales. Maybe you think they’re just strippers. Maybe you think they’re just models. Your only frame of reference might be the classic Chris Farley SNL skit. That’s about all I knew going in (aside from what I’d seen plastered all over the hotel).

I knew nothing.

Yes, their bodies are amazing—almost unreal. But these men have talent! Bryan Chan, for example, does some excellent live singing and also emcees the show. Others join in with live guitar or rapping. (I have to say, I found the men even hotter when they exhibited their musical talent, but as a musician myself, I suppose I’m a bit biased in that regard.) Of course, the choreography defines the show, and these men can move. There were also two extra dancers (who I guess are not official Chippendales, persay) that added some extra impressive dance talent to the show.

There were skits. There was audience participation. There were special effects and set changes. It truly was a theatrical experience! Randy and I chatted afterward for a bit about the creative vision behind the show, and there really is a lot of thought put into it. You might have one scene that gets hot and heavy, the next might be of a classier variety, and the next more light with some audience participation. The ebb and flow keeps the show engaging and interesting, without ever skimping on the hottness.

I also sort of noticed that the show has a lot of similarities to drag. Obviously the appeal of Chippendales is slightly different than drag’s “intrigue of transvesticism” (as Tim Minchin calls it). But consider: they both have lip-syncing and choreography; they both depend on physical spectacle; and they both can be extremely cheesy (or campy, as in the case of drag). They’re sort of two ends of the same stick—men portraying the extremes of men and women. I don’t think this observation detracts from either kind of show, but is definitely interesting to consider. (I actually saw a great drag show later that night; if you’re ever in Vegas, go see the fabulous Shawn M at Free Zone. She does an amazing Sarah Palin and Madonna, and she’s a delight to chat with as well!)

One last thing I have to say about Chippendales is that the guys were actually quite nice. A few of them even came out and greeted us with handshakes and bro-hugs. Can you say you’ve been hugged by a Chippendale? I can.

Now, Randy informed us that the entire cast is currently straight. Word on the street is that this may not be the case, but I will not delve into Vegas gossip here at ZFb. Ultimately, I don’t think it matters. I find the strippers in gay bars to be way too sexual and “dirty” anyway. Contrastingly, the Chippendales men look great, they’re clearly having a good time, and it’s a classy and entertaining show for everybody.

I have to really thank Randy for inviting us to the show and treating us so well, including drinks and gift bags. It was quite a generous gesture, and I was under no obligation to praise the show as I have—the show earned it. If you go to Vegas, make sure you head over to the Rio and see the Chippendales. GAY MEN ARE WELCOME!!

I also want to thank Joe for writing an awesome blog and for being a great new friend. Our night at Chippendales will be a memory I won’t soon forget.

I know I’m job searching and everything, but I just want to take a brief moment to say that masturbation is a great thing.

If homosexuals were teaching high school students how to masturbate, as Brandon claimed this past May, I think it’s a wonderful thing. I don’t know why they’d be doing it in the Capitol Rotunda, but that seems beside the point.

I am skeptical that there exists a high school student who hasn’t figured out how to masturbate, and if there is, then by golly, he deserves to learn! Maybe there are some girls who don’t know, and why should they be left out? I applaud the homosexuals for spreading sexual literacy and also a very healthy alternative to unsafe sex.

Don’t you love America? Just condemn any word that relates to anything sexual and the Christians will cheer!

What up with that?

That I know of, there is not a single argument against marriage equality that isn’t founded upon religious bigotry.

Not one.

This is why I proudly identify as a gaytheist. The atheist community, in my opinion, is the most LGBT-friendly non-LGBT group of allies in our society. They often don’t get recognized as such, but that’s a problem with atheist visibility in general, a bridge I hope to better build.

So, what’s Jillard’s deal? If she’s really an atheist, she’s not a very good one.

The worst part? Journalists have let her get away with it:

“We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples,” she said, according to the Herald.

“Asked if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was,” according to the Herald.

Let’s be perfectly clear: that is not an answer. It repeats the view, but it doesn’t answer the question of why. Would it kill a journalist on this planet to actually confront a politician on her vacuous talking points?

At any rate, Gillard is neither a good atheist nor a good LGBT ally. She calls herself an atheist, but still clings to religious privilege for cheap political points. She says she supports equal treatment for the LGBT community at the same time she’s adding her voice to anti-gay messaging. What does she gain? I don’t know. I’m not really an expert on Australian politics. But I definitely thinks it gives everyone a reason to be skeptical about any of her other political positions.

As radio host Derryn Hinch said, she’s a hypocrite, and as Mike added in his story, she’s a coward.

Might I add selfish and/or foolish to the list?

Someday it’ll cost political capital to not oppose marriage equality. Until then, we have to ask tougher questions of our politicians.

I don’t.

What happens in Vegas… meh.

I’ve written before that, for my own sake, I’m a big fan of monogamy. Still, I’m a sexual being, and I’m not going to lie, I wasn’t averse to a Vegas experience (but not one I had to pay for). For the record, I doubt I’d have written about it on a blog that’s largely not about my personal life, so don’t get too excited.

There were, in fact, multiple occasions during my time in Vegas that there was the potential for something to take place that was worthy of “staying in Vegas.” These kinds of situations happen all the time. The guys are cute, funny, and you’re buying each other drinks or whatnot… things seem swell. Then, they light a cigarette, and the attraction (and thus any fantasy) ends.

I hate cigarette smoke. It is, by far, my biggest turn off. It’s gross and it’s obnoxious.

More importantly, I have a sensitivity to it. Someone told me that you can’t be “allergic” to it, so I say sensitivity, but damn it if the right whiff doesn’t launch me into a 15-minute sneezing fit. It irritates my eyes, it makes me nauseous, and seriously, it frickin’ reeks. I once went on a date with a guy who just smelled like smoke and I ended it as soon as the movie was over because I simply could not stand to be around him. When I was living in New York and Iowa, I was fortunate that I could go and enjoy the bars without these experiences, but now I hesitate to go out much here in PA, because my experiences are always so tainted.

It turns out that smoking is a big problem in the gay community. I choose the word, “problem,” because yes, it a serious health concern (and not just because some of us hate it). A study came out last month that found that smoking in the LGBT community is disproportionately high:

The study indicates the LGBT population smokes at a higher rate than the general public. Data show that gay, bisexual and transgender men are up to 2.5 times more likely to smoke than heterosexual men. Lesbian, bisexual and transgender women are up to twice as likely to smoke as straight women.

WTF? Isn’t it bad enough that we’re still beaten, harassed, demonized, and discriminated against? Do we have to smell bad too? Do we really need to add lung cancer to our list of ailments when HIV still doesn’t get the attention it deserves?

(Oh, and by the way, if you “only smoke when drinking,” then guess what? You smoke.)

The thing that drives me the craziest is how indignant people are about smoking. I’m sure there are plenty of people who will read this post and think me (or even call me) “intolerant.” I’m not sensitive to people’s addictions. I’m a fascist who’s trying to control people’s freedom. Some might even think I’m jealous that I don’t look super cool with a fag between my fingers.

First, I have incredible sympathy for folks with addiction and eagerly offer my support and motivation for those trying to quit. I really respect the folks who are conscientious about not smoking around others or even indoors. Second, I’m not so judgmental that I won’t even be around people who smoke. My mom smokes, and I still love her dearly (but you can bet I stay away from her when she smokes and for a period of time after).

Also, I’m not trying to tell anyone they can’t smoke. I do like telling people they can’t smoke in indoor public spaces, because I feel that helps make spaces inclusive of non-smokers without really being exclusive of smokers. (Oh, and I might favor higher taxes on tobacco too, because, well, I’m kind of a socialist like that.)

But come on, queer community. Don’t we owe ourselves better? I don’t know the ins and outs of why people smoke, but I just feel like smoking is bad for the queer community’s health and social well being. I mean, some folks even fetishize smoking, as if it’s really hot! (Check out boys-smoking.com if you don’t believe me—fair warning: it’s a gay porn site.) This is just disgusting. And again, I’m not trying to judge your fetish, I’m concerned about your health and my own!

I hated having to walk through the casino this past week. I’d always come out the other side with bloodshot eyes. And come on, even if you disagree with me that we need to really work to reduce the tobacco use of our community, surely you aren’t so cruel as to suggest I don’t deserve a boyfriend who I can kiss without sneezing blood a few minutes later.

There’s no good excuse for our bad habits. If you need help, please check out the National LGBT Tobacco Control Network or contact your local quitters’ hotline. Let’s show the world how nice we can really smell.

New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens ‘It’s Gay To Smoke’

I haven’t written about AFTAH much on this blog, because they are so ridiculously out there that I don’t think they need to be written about to be mocked. Americans for Truth about Homosexuality is a hate group intent on preserving only the most archaic standards of sexuality. Next month, they are offering an entire “academy” to young potential haters about just how to hate on teh gays. Kids as young as 14 are welcome.

Hemant Mehta has offered to cover the costs for any young folks who want to go (and of course report on it). AFTAH requires “references” to make sure attendees aren’t undercover progays, but I’m sure some infiltrators will manage to get in.

Last week, the “academy” unveiled it’s “curriculum,” and whooee! is it a good time. Let’s take a look at the courses propaganda-fests and the wise professors known bigots who will impart their knowledge about homosexuality. (Jeremy Hooper was remarking this weekend about how just the use of the word “homosexuals” can be a big red flag for a person’s perspective on LGBT issues—not that we’re at all surprised by these clowns.)

After an opening prayer, Peter LaBarbera kicks things off with “From gay pride to gay tyranny.” This will be about the way that, after our parades are over, we go strangle teabaggers with our rainbow flags and then fist their children.

“Professor” Rena Lindevaldsen (I use quotes because she “teaches” at the Liberty University School of Law) then moves things along with “History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts.” She’ll spend the first 55 minutes bemoaning the way “gay” no longer means “happy,” and the last five minutes sharing everything she knows about courts.

Matt Barber will chime in with “Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality.” Part of his talk will explain how the best way to overcome homosexuality is through knowledge of sports and car mechanics, and then he’ll explain how folks like him started the Culture War by attacking homosexuals at every opportunity.

You’ll only get a light lunch so that you have room to stomach “The ‘born gay’ hoax,” presented by Ryan Sorba of Young Conservatives of California. This presentation should be particularly revealing, as Sorba will be sharing never-before-seen schematics of the microchips inserted in the genitalia of all future-homosexuals.

Everybody’s favorite, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, is up next. In “Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments,” she will magically not once refer to reason nor logic. She will outline all of the pro-homosexual arguments, then shrug and say, “But they’re wrong.”

Just in case you thought this was a Christian-only situation, here comes Arthur Goldberg from JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality). If you aren’t familiar with JONAH, they discourage people from having gay sex by teaching them new exercise routines and diet restrictions. No, gay men are not allowed to have any fruit. His talk will be called, “Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality.” Here’s a preview: “Yes, No, You don’t really need to read any of it.”

The day is far from over. Next, all of the presenters of the day will form a panel to discuss “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?” While the panel answers questions, participants will be distributed proton packs and the sheet music to Auld Lang Syne for a future field trip to the subway system.

Grab a bite to eat for dinner then return Thursday night for a special presentation by Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). In “An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality,” Quinlan will describe how hated he was and how much he was lied to while he was homosexual. Now that he’s ex-still-gay, his life is completely delusional, but happy.

Day 2! Cliff Kincaid is ready to tell you about “The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy.” I’m not sure why he needs a whole hour to say, “Don’t let them even touch you; they all have AIDS,” but I’m sure he’ll find a way to repeat it in some interesting ways.

The “professor” is back! “The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms” is another brief lecture about how Christians are right and nothing else matters.

“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda“: More fisting.

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”: “We don’t get it, so there’s nothing to get.”

Ugh, this is exhausting. Here are the rest of the lectures. You comment with your favorite ways to make fun of them:

“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

“Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

“But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

“Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’” – I love that they give “conservatives” the mocking quotes!

“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

Have at them my readers! Mock away!

In the meantime, you should check out this week’s episode of the SameSexSunday podcast! There is a ton of content, including two interviews and two panels, one of which I cohosted! You’ll learn a lot about what we were working on at Netroots Nation and some of the key issues for the LGBT movement. (The panel I cohosted starts around 24:30.)

SameSexSunday 8 from Netroots Nation

Thanks to Phil Reese for inviting me to join in!

If you haven’t been following my twitter, you should be. It’s the best way to track what’s been happening here at the conference. In this post, though, I want to talk about some ups and downs of the conference. I have a few more grumbles than you might expect, so stick with  me. Redeeming positives are further below.

I really think that, in general, Netroots Nation really needs to be better at modeling. There have been a number of things that have made this conference slightly frustrating in ways that I think could easily be improved.

For example, the wireless internet access has sucked. To use the internet in your hotel room is ridiculously expensive and the service is really not reliable at all. (It was quite arduous just getting this post up this morning.) The Netroots folks have set up a free wireless system in the convention area, but it has been rife with problems. It was down more often than not yesterday and even when it was up, it was not always consistent. There were a number of times I was sitting in a panel trying to follow my Tweetdeck and getting nothing while folks next to me had service.

This seems to me to be bad form. To many, the quality of the internet connection you have while in Las Vegas would be negligible, but we’re here at a conference about using the internet! If I were part of the conference planning group, my first priority in selecting a venue would be confirming that they have quality, reliable internet and don’t charge guests an arm and a leg for it. It’s hard to be a good Netroots activist without the Net!

Surprisingly, that hasn’t been the only technology fail. I’ve been in several panels already where the presenters were struggling with media in their presentations. In some cases it wasn’t their fault, but I still think the result was that it undermined their presentation. If you are here at Netroots to show your eagerness to interact with the blogosphere, you should at least be competent at using your own computer. I don’t mean to sound petty or whiny; I think there’s a credibility issue here. If your words are saying “I want to engage with people through technology” and your actions say “I don’t know how to engage with technology,” the presentation kind of feels disingenuous.

And, by far, my biggest complaint is the level of engagement. Most of the sessions throughout the day are “panels.” There are a few trainings and caucuses, but panels predominate. I went to four yesterday. The topics of those panels were great. I attended two that related to scientific literacy and education standards, one about marriage equality, and one about using social media. Sounds great, right? But the panels themselves betray the very values the Netroots presents for itself.

This thought occurred to me during the social media panel. The panelists were talking about the importance of reaching out to others in the blogosphere rather than expecting others to just come to us. As I tweeted from the panel: Treat online people like people and allies, not sheep. This expectation of community participation is at the core of Netroots activism; it keeps the playing field level by expecting everyone to participate actively.

The panels accomplish the opposite. They are groups of four or five who talk at us and then expect us to just ask them questions. It’s not really conversational, and it just seems to go against the very culture we seem to be trying to promote. Granted, I’m also biased as an educator and a performer; my top priority is always to keep people engaged and participating. The folks on these panels are brilliant and can speak eloquently to their issues, and there are certainly times when a panel format is ideal. I just think it’s odd that such a format is embraced as the primary format of engagement throughout the conference.

So, those are my primary complaints. They’re not really big ones, but they definitely give me a context for how to think about the rest of the conference and how to get the most out of it.

I have to say, Twitter is a pretty amazing tool for connecting with others. It can be annoying as hell when the hashtag search is full of retweets, but it does wonders for shared experiences. I’ve actually met a lot of people here at the conference through our exchange of tweets. I think it’s easy to think of Twitter as just a social tool, but it also is, itself, a great venue for delivering information. I won’t be blogging as much about the content of some of these workshops because Twitter is taking care of a lot of it. A number of people have actually come up to me and told me how much they appreciate my tweets, which makes me feel like it’s not all in vain!

It’s also been amazing to meet my readers. Honestly, before I got to this conference, I wasn’t sure many folks out there were really following this little ol’ blog, and it warms my heart to know you appreciate what I’m doing here. I hope I don’t sound as egotistical as that blowhard Ed Schultz (from MSNBC) who spoke last night. It’s just been an incredible confidence booster to feel like I’m not just wasting my time.

I’m certainly doing my best to sell myself here (though not in that way—I know this is Vegas, but seriously!). I continue to meet incredible people at every turn; there’s no doubt this weekend will have been a life-changing experience. I feel like a little kid at Disney World or something. I’m super excited to see others willing to promote my work! Pam Spaulding linked to my post from earlier this week; Joe Jervis has a picture of me on his site; and I even did a video interview with Minnesota-based The Uptake.

I really and truly feel like a part of this community, and I love it. I must continue to extend my thanks to all the amazing people who have made it possible for me to be here and who continue to be great mentors!! Exciting change can happen when we all work together toward our shared goals.

I have to get ready to get back into the fray! Go back to following my tweets for more updates throughout the day!

And in case you’re wondering, I played one dollar on a slot machine. I now have one less dollar. Cheers from Vegas!

Zack… and Peterson… are coming at you from opposite sides of the continent! Zack is in Las Vegas for Netroots Nation and Peterson is heading off to TransForm New Hampshire. The sound quality is a bit low because it was recorded via phone, but the content quality is at its queerest. Zack shares some of his experiences spending a full day (July 21) with other LGBT bloggers and organization reps with some updates on some pressing issues. After weeks of teasing it, Peterson finally tells us about all the awesome workshops  to expect from TransForm New Hampshire. Listen this week to get a sense of these great conferences, then follow Peterson and Zack on Twitter throughout the weekend for even more! (Zack edited out a lot of the delay, but left in his unusual number of umm’s and uh’s so you can tell how tired he is.)

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

» Israel Jails Arab for ‘Sex Through Fraud’

» NYT’s Randy Cohen: When to Out a Transgender Dater?

» Dr. Jillian Weiss responds: People Who Don’t Out Themselves Are Immoral

» Check out Peterson’s new show: I Can See Sarah Palin from My Window

» Check out the Same Sex Sunday Podcast!

» TransForm New Hampshire

» Netroots Nation

The focus of our day was really about bridging gaps in the movement. How can the organizations and the bloggers work together to move forward? Even though as citizen journalists we have an obligation to hold our leaders (both political and activist) accountable, we do ultimately have the same goals of seeing equality where it’s currently lacking. Everyone from HRC to GetEQUAL to Lambda Legal to GLAAD were on hand to talk about not just what they are doing, but how they can work with us to accentuate their efforts and spread their message.

I’ve been using the word “fledging” to describe my blog because in a lot of ways, I really don’t feel like I’m connected to things the way a lot of the folks I was around today are. It was really great to sit there and talk to orgs about how great it would be if they could send me the resources I need to do my best work here on the blog. The mere fact that I’m here at Netroots Nation speaks, I hope, to the idea that my blogging is worthwhile, but it’s incredibly validating to know that what I have here really can be a force for change.

As we discussed issues like immigration, marriage, employment nondiscrimination, and HIV/AIDS, it was inspiring that we didn’t just talk about how to use new media, we made commitments to using it together. We said, “This is a good idea, and we are going to work together to employ it.” It makes perfect sense for HRC and Pam Spaulding to cooperate on highlighting stories of people who have lost their jobs because they are gay. It makes perfect sense for Jeremy Hooper and I to work together on opposition research for anti-gay religious groups. It just takes us being in the room together and putting it out there and making the commitment. That’s the Netroots in action.

I must confess that my jetlag is catching up with me, and if I don’t nap now, I’ll have no evening of fun. I am in Vegas afterall. This is the first of many posts from Netroots Nation. If you are interested in what there is to learn here, please comment on the posts with your questions or shoot me emails!

As I pack up and get ready, I want to take just a moment to reflect on the week I’ve already had. I had the distinct honor of standing as a groomsman in my friends’ wedding here in Iowa. It was not a same-sex wedding, but I was certainly proud to be part of an Iowa wedding nonetheless.

Before, during, and after my two years living in Iowa, I would get a common kind of reaction from folks back east. Once they figured out which one was Iowa (the one with the potatoes, right?), there was always a sort of, “Oh… Iowa,” reaction, followed by, “I bet that was fun.”

Truth be told, I did have some challenges living in Iowa. Heck, this blog started because I was having trouble communicating and relating to some others while I was here. But the truth is, Iowa is a pretty cool place.

In addition to the wedding, I spent five days visiting a whole bunch of wonderful people who impacted my life while I was here (as well as playing an inordinate amount of late-night gaming). I remembered what truly awesome friends I did have out here, and how Iowa doesn’t necessarily deserve the assumption inherent in people’s reaction to the thought of it. Iowa left an imprint on my heart that I cannot simply brush off.

It’s odd to think about flying to Las Vegas from here. I am going to Netroots Nation thanks to Freedom to Marry, but I am leaving a state with marriage equality to go be a part of a conference in a state without marriage equality. In fact, I’m leaving one of the few states where I can legally commit to the love of my life to go to the only state where I can legally pay for a hot trick.

It puts things in perspective a bit. If morality is supposedly the underpinning of the laws in our country, then shouldn’t the laws promote the activities more people consider moral? What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas because those are the stories people are often ashamed or embarrassed to tell. What happens in Iowa is beautiful and true and ought to be shared everywhere.

Despite this somewhat disappointing juxtaposition, I am excited for the next five days of my journey. I’m going to commune with amazing other bloggers and activists and perhaps make some of the most important and life-changing connections of my life. For those of you who have missed your daily dose of ZackFord, get ready, because I’m sure I’ll be over compensating at Netroots. Stay tuned, there’s a wild road ahead!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8xCgC3w1zs

Missing your almost-daily does of ZackFord Blogs? Click here for a random post you might not have seen before!

Zack and Peterson come to you with travel advice! First up: An in-depth analysis of the reactions from church groups to pro-LGBT policies in Ft. Worth, TX. Where are they coming from and how should we feel about their complaints? Then, it’s the listeners’ turn to chime in! See where Queer and Queerer listeners think are the best places to be gay, lesbian, trans, and/or queer. As episode 15 rolls on past, we still leave you with the lingering question of who is queer and who is queerer?

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

» Coverage related to Ft. Worth LGBT policies:

» News report from last night’s Town Council meeting.

» Minutes and video from last night’s meeting. (Comments start at1:55:30)

» TransForm New Hampshire

» Netroots Nation

While I’m glad to see open discussion about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on TV, I was generally frustrated that Kathy Griffin would hail herself as some kind of hero that she is not. So, I decided to use the episode to raise a little awareness about the Human Rights Campaign. I’ve written against them quite a bit in the past (April, March, February, January, October) and am still in no way satisfied that they appropriately represent the LGBT community on our salient issues.

So, on the Human Rights Campaign Facebook Wall, HRC had posted a link to their Dear Senator robo-email form, encouraging those watching Kathy Griffin’s show to participate. In fairness, it was not an ask for money. But, the whole things was still a publicity stunt. So, I offered the following comment.

Zack Ford: Want to take action to help pointless publicity stunts that don’t really make a difference? HRC is the group to fund!

And hoo-wee was the discussion fun!

Thomas Vire: Hey Zach,sounds as though you’d rather help the tea party…Now there’s a pointless group of very angry people,they just don’t know who to be angry at… [13 Likes]

Doyle C. Durando: Great Attitude Zach!

Michael Voit: I agree with Zack on this one. Thanks for wasting my time.

Josh Ritchie: Want to talk pointless crap that only makes you look like an idiot? Zack is the person to talk to! [6 Likes]

Bret Valdez: ‎@Zack, Kathy Griffin is a huge ally for the gay community… shame you’re so negative towards our supporters… [2 Likes]

Erica Anderson: Bitter much, Zack? If anything you are thinking of PETA with their outrageous stunts they pull to try to get people to pay attention to them.

Ashleigh Bealko: Yes, no hate please…if u don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all- didn’t anyone ever teach u that? [2 Likes]

Social media is fun! Can there be a new form of Godwin’s Law for Tea Party comparisons? I can’t believe that was the first retort out of the gate.

Simply for challenging our largest LGBT organization to be accountable (as most of the Netroots do these days, it seems), I was attacked by their supporters. I was called a teabagger, which is bad enough, but my points were also referred to as “pointless crap,” and I was accused of being negative and hateful. I think one of the other commenters might have thought I was a Republican. Yeesh.

We have a big PR problem within our community if that’s how people react to fair internal critiques.

Of course, I wasn’t done.

Zack Ford: Wow, love all the respectful dialogue. If HRC claims to speak on behalf of all of us, it’d be great if they didn’t constantly cave on all our issues. Excuse me for wanting to hold them accountable. [3 Likes]

Not even close.

Sloan Danenhower: zack, i hear you. but at the same time politics is the art of the possible and if the HRC didn’t “cave” we wouldn’t have anything…

Mario Pinardi: Bitter & jaded solves nothing. Energy & passion solves the impossible. If you do not like HRC, at least, stand behind the cause of repealing DADT. Zero patience for bitter idiots. [4 Likes]

Zack Ford: Sloan, we don’t have anything anyway.

Chris Weisbecker: I don’t know. I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, that’s one of the things that makes this country so friggin awesome. But I also do feel that we are making a huge difference. If you are not happy with the organization, you can always just leave. Or even better yet, offer some constructive ways and solutions to make things better. [3 Likes]

Zack Ford: How about we stop pandering the President? How about they stop asking for money for campaigns that don’t actually apply pressure? How about we stop accepting compromises on our equality? Anyone want to tell me when the discharges stop?

Brian Rolon: If HRC is pointless, then remove them from your friends list and quit posting your own pointless comments. Get em Kathy!

Bret Valdez: Zack you sound so ignorant right now. I barely know anything about politics, but I’m not on a Facebook profile voicing my ill-advised opinions about them. and remember, opinions are like assholes; everyone’s got one.

Zack Ford: Bret, when do the discharges end?

I’m not going to lie; I do find this kind of fun. But I also think it’s important. There could have been a hundred comments of people just praising Kathy Griffin and HRC, but now there’s some real discussion going. People are calling me names and spelling my name wrong, but that’s ok. It’s just a poor response to the cognitive dissonance they’re experiencing.

Sarah Angela Evans: ‎@Zach Ford, WRONG.. you do have rights and you may not realize this because of your youth, but the rights you have NOW are because of the HRC and those of us who stood up and gained the rights we have now. We started the first Gay Activist Alliance at the University of Oklahoma, when it was unheard of to talk about being a “queer” but we fought and we won. I remember being called names, bashed and having fireworks hurled at us by those who hated us. And the police turned the other way. When the police did look our way, they were beating us up for being a queer… I see you graduated from IOWA.. be proud at least gays can marry in your State!!! I remember many friends who were discharged dishonorably after a career in the military simply on the word of someone saying they were a queer… and when the Army Internal Affairs would come to the gay bars off post and take names of those who were there so they could throw them out of the service… Zach, we have so much more than we did when I was your age… This is not an overnight win.. it takes time… hopefully in my lifetime, but definitely in yours… [3 Likes]

I didn’t want to respond to Sarah, directly, because that just didn’t seem like it would be productive to the thread. But, I will say here that the dishonorable discharges are no different today. I still can’t get married. I still can get fired. The police still unfairly target our community. I am quite proud of those who came before to help educate and change attitudes, but when it comes to the law, what’s different? As far as I can see, I don’t have any federal rights that she didn’t back at the University of Oklahoma. I hate to be a downer, but that’s why I’m angry. Important work was done, but we haven’t come that far, and HRC surely has done squat recently (except take our money, of course).

Zack Ford: It’d be great if we stopped apologizing for a President who takes our money and then doesn’t expend any capital on our issues. I appreciate the work that’s come before, but I think we need to hold HRC accountable for their promises and issues. [1 Like]

Brian Anderson: Thank you Zack.

Sabrina Codella Ricketts: I am gay, and I served for 8 years. I completed my contract, got out and married my highschool sweetheart. As much as I am disgusted with DADT, I’m not naive enough to think that things will change over a couple years. Never in our country’s history has change towards equality been swift. One of the first moves towards ending slavery happened in 1787. MLK was still marching for equality in the 1960s. Now gays aren’t fighting back from slavery but we are fighting back from being labeled as immoral and a disease on society. You can’t expect the impossible. Unfortunately it will be slow gains over time. Just keep fighting and grab onto and celebrate the gains. Direct your anger where it belongs. At the bigots, not the organizations trying to make things better.

Thank you for your service, Sabrina. Unfortunately, the organization taking our community’s money is responsible for our lack of progress. Did it ever occur to you that they’re not good at what they do? Or more importantly, they don’t accomplish the goals they’ve promised us?

Evance Cannon: HRC FAIL

Evance Cannon: The elegant activist is a total DOUCHENOZZLE!

Zack Ford: Gotta love the photo opportunity while real activists are taking real action… Ooh, and a text from Cher! That’s going to make a difference. We can do so much better than these stunts folks. Think twice about who you entrust to advocate on your behalf. [1 Like]

Mario Pinardi: As a gay man who is relatively dull, I choose to make bold choices in order to fight for equality. So, if you are a gay & a conservative & a hater, then you are the one who is damaging our cause, not vocal allies like Kathy. Again, zero tolerance for those who choose to diminish & hate inside their own GLBT community. You have a lot to learn about tolerance, inclusion, & equality. I say “Go Kathy” – make more bold choices for your “gays.”

Some of these comments make me wonder if we have a real insecurity problem in the community. I come from a biased place; I read about HRC’s inaction at least weekly on the blogosphere. But here are folks that think HRC’s the end-all-be-all and attack anyone who challenges their organization’s pristine reputation. Wake up, folks! It’s far from it.

The thing that frustrated me most was that at the end of the D-List episode, some text on the screen explained that the House of Representatives had voted on repeal or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

No, they did not. They voted on some ambiguous compromise that two months after the completion of the survey that will take until December, a whole bunch of military leaders can decide if and how they want to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Zack Ford: WHOA MISINFORMATION. THEY DID NOT VOTE ON REPEAL.

Zack Ford: When do the discharges end? No one knows.

Keith Valdez: I think Kathy did the right thing in not going to the white house with cho. How is handcuffing yourself to the white house fence going to help? [1 Like]

Zack Ford: Keith, like all civil disobedience, it puts the pressure and accountability on the those who enforce the law. It’s saying, “This discrimination is so hurting us we’re willing to break the law in front of your office. It’s YOUR fault, President Obama, that I’m in jail. I wouldn’t have to do this if you had fulfilled your promise to be a fierce advocate.” [1 Like]

Keith Valdez: Well not everyone is against Obama. Obama didn’t put him in jail, he handcuffed himself to the fence. That is a violation of the laws protecting the residence of our nations leader and therefore he put himself into jail. He could have made a bold statement any other way because if I remember correctly he wasn’t protesting the laws governing the protection of the white house. Kathy does not have to subscribe to his way of protesting and neither do the rest of us. That event was in the news for a few days then forgotten until now so he can thank her for giving him some publicity. It was presumptuous and not very thoughtful on his part to put her on the spot in that way.

Actually, I think the media completely ignored Kathy and Joe’s staged rally in favor of the real activism Dan and Jim were doing. There was nothing news-worthy about the rally except that it got trumped by what Dan and Jim did! Oh, and did you see they were still in the news today of their own accord? And their charges were dismissed, presumably because the Obama administration was embarrassed there would be a public airing of their failure to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell!

William Robert Hagen: ‎@Zack Ford, I agree 100%. Almost 1,000 LGBT soldiers have been booted under Obama. HRC does need to hold Obama accountable. Obama made those promises to us, we did not force him to make him those promises. Obama could stop enforcement through Executive Order right now and has not. If he would do that, I personally would shut-up, but until he does that he does not get my support and more importantly, my money.

Glen McWilliams: All the blind kudos just because it’s Kathy Griffin is a perfect example of why no one in office takes gay activism seriously.

Now, there might be some of you out there who think my little comments on HRC’s wall were petty and useless. You might feel that reading this post was a waste of your time. That’s fine. But let me ask you: what have you done to engage in critical dialogue lately?

If one person read my comments and thought twice about the efficacy of the Human Rights Campaign, then it was worth it. Every step forward helps.

Religion is one big self-fulfilling prophesy. You never hear people say that “God has a plan” for them that doesn’t happen to coincide with their own interests. So, when you have someone like Hitchens intent on disrupting the delusional self-affirmation, the apologists’ attempts to overcompensate become that much more obvious.

The first attempt at reaffirmation comes from an article on OneNewsNow about a new book by Peter Hitchens—Christopher’s brother—called The Rage Against God. This is an attempt to downplay anything Christopher Hitchens has ever stood for by saying well, he can’t be that great if his own brother disagrees with him. Peter is one of those turncoats he thinks he has authority to speak on atheism because he’s (apparently) an ex-atheist.

It’s evident from the excerpts in this article that P. Hitchens doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He was too scared of judgment that he fell back into delusion. For example, he suggests that Virginia Woolf’s “passionate” disdain for T. S. Eliot’s belief in God is actually just fear that Eliot might be right. See what you want to see, I guess.

P. Hitchens is really afraid that “the dissolution of Christian education is a real possibility.” I don’t see what the problem with that is. But to defend his fear, he trots out the same old malarkey about morals:

In retrospect at least, he’d begun to sense a direct correlation between the absence of faith and the absence of basic human civility.  He’d also begun to see clear evidence of what he calls “the fallen nature of man, and his inability to achieve perfection,” in places where “man set himself up to replace God with the state.”

Apparently he’s behind on his reading about the effects of secularism. And there’s never been a case of the faithful failing at basic human civility.

Oh, that reminds me of the Catholic Church! Check out this potshot CNN let Chicago’s not-so-Reverent Robert Barron take at Christopher Hitchens. It’s a whole column about encouraging prayer for an ailing atheist. This can’t be good.

Barron is a strategist, and he starts his piece with lots of exposition about just who this Christopher Hitchens guy is. Then he starts talking about how Hitchens likes the work of Bob Dylan and Evelyn Waugh. He uses this to make quite a stretch that leads (finally) into his offensive and diminutive thesis:

I confess I began to wonder whether, despite his brassy atheism, Mr. Hitchens didn’t have a good deal of sensitivity to things religious.

Apparently NSR Barron has the authority to speak on behalf of God’s motives for afflicting Hitchens with cancer:

Hitchens’ disease is indeed ingredient in God’s providence, since at the very least it was permitted by the one whose wisdom “stretches from end to end mightily.”

Personally, I think Hitchens got cancer because he got cancer. As I wrote last year and discussed on the Queer and Queerer Podcast, I think using others’ misfortunes as an opportunity to reinforce your own faith is extremely offensive. This is apologism at its most vile. It’s pity for those who aren’t respected. It’s pretentious and it’s selfish.

Hitchens seeks by means of specious argument, insinuation, and sometimes plain smear-tactics to undermine religion. He ought to be opposed, vigorously, with counter-argument and clarification of fact. But all the while, he ought to be respected.

“Clarification of fact” makes me laugh a little, which is refreshing in the midst of this aggravating act of religious masturbation. There is no respect for Hitchens. This is just patronage.

So read Christopher Hitchens; disagree with him and get angry with him; defend the faith against his attacks. And pray for him.

Encouraging anger at a person? If you disagree with his ideas, that’s fine, but anger seems uncalled for if you really want to be respectful. But you don’t want to be respectful, do you, NSR Barron?

Both of these stories show that defenders of religion are cowards who cannot confront critique head on. Hitchens’ brother is a complete false attribution; he doesn’t make any good arguments that address any of Christopher Hitchens’ critiques. And praying for an atheist in an attempt to take higher ground is extremely petty. Pull back the curtain and Barron’s attempt to disprove Hitchen’s critiques by this false act of sympathy accomplishes just the opposite.

Note to all of you believers out there who like to take “offense” to any challenge to your religious beliefs. If you don’t like what you hear, then step up and defend yourself or step back. Don’t kick a man while he’s down and assume a smug sense of moral superiority for doing so.

Read a book on atheism and raise money for a Relay for Life, and then—maybe then—I’ll believe that your motives are in any way honest (or the least bit selfless).

The theory hypothesis is that if you just let the market go, society will take care of itself. It’s this odd notion that keeps conservatives bedded to big business (in the name of “small government”). But the right is also bedded to Christianity, so when it comes to any social issue, hypocrisy reigns supreme. And lately, they’ve really tried to conflate the two. They argue that we don’t need to do anything related to civil rights because the market will simply insist upon them. It’s a convenient way to hide their bigotry and stifle progress.

The joke here, though, is that the effects of promoting this conflation (including the Democrats pandering to it) disprove it. How many millions (if not billions) of dollars are wasted or lost for reasons like:

» Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges and the recruitment and training to compensate (at least $363 million, actually)

» An incredibly biased survey of currently serving troops ($4.4 million)

» The Department of Justice unnecessarily defending a law the President has already called for the repeal of

Those are just a couple of ideas as related to one of the many injustices against the LGBT community. We learned in the Prop 8 Trial of the huge financial impact of marriage inequality to just one city.

If the market could really control for human prejudice, it would have already. We wouldn’t be wasting all this money on utter nonsense.

This is just your routine reminder that our opponents operate on lies and fear and nothing more. There is no substance and no reason to their arguments, just a need to control and the intimidation to do it.

Hey all! I’ve been making a few tiny updates to the ZFb page and I thought you might be curious about the little ways it is becoming more user-friendly!

Email Subscription

I mentioned this change a few weeks ago on Facebook, but thought I’d reiterate it here. You can now subscribe to receive posts and/or comments via daily email digests. I know there are folks who prefer email updates over using RSS, so I hope you will take advantage of this option. Click here to subscribe to posts or click here to subscribe to comments. (ProTip: FeedBurner Email Subscription service.)

Comments

There are a number of changes to comments!

Those of you who were commenting this week may have noticed I changed out the comment form. As fancy as the MCE input box was, it had this habit of not putting spaces between folks’ paragraphs. This really started to drive me crazy, so I simply did away with it. Kudos to Hemant Mehta for tipping me to which plug-in he used to help you with some code. Even though this change is—I think—a visual set back, it will help ensure that comments look the way you all want them to, which I think is important. And for any of you who aren’t html-savvy, it’ll give you a little opportunity to practice! (ProTip: Comment Form Quicktags Plugin. The former plugin was TinyMCEComments.)

Just in case your comments aren’t turning out right, there is now a comment Preview button! This will give you the opportunity to see how your comment will look and proof it before you submit it. Since it now uses code, this will be a great way to double check you closed all your tags and such. Please make sure that if you do Preview your comment, you still remember to click post so it is submitted! (ProTip: Filosofo Comments Preview Plugin.)

I hope you’ll notice that the input buttons are now color coordinated with the theme, which should make them more user-friendly.

Also, some people had trouble with the old CAPTCHA system. I was distressed to learn some wonderful comments had been lost to the void because the CAPTCHA times out. I’ve got a great new system that’s just a simple Check Box. It never times out, and even if you forget to check it, it’ll save your comment for you. I love when smart people offer simple solutions! (ProTip: amcaptcha Plugin.)

By the way, it’s easier to subscribe to comments now! When you post a comment, just check the box to subscribe automatically. Also, if you want to subscribe without commenting, there is a simple form at the VERY bottom of posts (below the comment input form). That way everyone can follow the great discussions that we get going here on ZFb! (ProTip: Subscribe to Comments and Subscribe to Comments Now! Plugins.)

Design Tweaks

Some new visitors to the site had trouble finding the comments, so I added a link to the comment section in the header of posts. I also revamped how the date looks and added the time. (That way, you can tell how uncool I am, like when I post about blog tweaks after 11 PM on a Friday night.)

I also moved the ad that was formerly at the top of single posts. It’s now at the bottom near the comments section. This should make single posts more accessible, which is great, because more people get to the site through a link to a post as opposed to arriving at the main index.

I’ve been playing around with the logos again too, just because I can and it’s fun. Right now we’re tracing the blog’s Iowa roots with some summer sunshine and knee-high corn. You may have missed the Pride Month and 4th of July logos. (The 4th of July one made the site look more like one of those conservative propaganda sites!) There will, of course, be a special one for Netroots Nation later this month.

Facebook Integration

A while back, I went through and tried to manually integrate Facebook with ZFb. It kind of looked like it worked, but it didn’t. If anybody saw the “Like” box at the bottom of posts, I’d never know, because I don’t think the feature worked right anyway. Now it does, and is neatly integrated into the top of posts. Please feel free to Like posts! (Facebook iLike Plugin.)

[Let's hope the third time's the charm! After publishing this post, I spent a couple hours dealing with some RSS problems that were ultimately caused by that Facebook Plugin. I've got a new one and now we're up and running again. For all the trouble this Facebook integration has been, please Like posts when you like them! (ProTip: WP Facebook Like Plugin.)]

To help remove clutter with the new Like button, the Bookmarks bar is now only at the bottom of posts. Please feel free to Tweet, Reddit, Stumble, Digg, and Seed my posts!

Share Your Feedback

I want to make this little site easy to read and interact with. If you have any ideas or suggestions for how to make ZackFord Blogs a better site, let me know!! Leave a comment on this post or shoot me an email. I’ll gladly do anything I can to help my readers!

The other tactic much better describes yesterday’s two cases in Massachusetts, a strategic laser-point decimation of just one discriminatory law. In these cases, the target was actually just one specific part of one law, but that does not change the importance of this victory.

(If you want a quick review of the decisions, check out the coverage on last night’s Rachel Maddow show. Read on for a deeper analysis with excerpts from the decisions.)

The good ol’ Defense of Marriage Act does two things. The first is that it lets each state decide whether to recognize same-sex marriage for itself. This is why you can get married in Massachusetts, but if you enter Pennsylvania, you won’t be married anymore. I’m still convinced this is a violation of Full Faith & Credit, because it allows a license from one state to not be recognized in another. As frustrating as that is, it’s not what we’re here to talk about. Yesterday’s decision did not address this aspect of the law at all.

Both cases were brought to target the other piece of DOMA (“Section 3″), which says that for all relevant purposes, the federal government will define marriage as between a man and a woman. This is the law that holds back legally married same-sex couples from obtaining the 1,049 1,138 benefits offered by federal law, such as joint tax returns and social security for spouses. Both decisions deem this law unconstitutional, and both do it in different ways.

Now, before we dive in, it’s important to note something else about these cases. They were both brought against the Federal government. The Prop 8 case is in federal court and could still impact us all, but the focus is still California’s law. But these decisions intentionally targeted the fed. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled against the constitutionality of DOMA in each.

In Gill v. OPM, seven same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, as well as three survivors (widows?), challenged the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA based on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (“No personal shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). The plaintiffs claimed that they did not receive due process because they could not enroll their spouses in federal health programs (administered by the OPM) or Social Security Benefits, nor could they file their income taxes jointly.

In Massachusetts v. HHS, the Commonwealth (it’s not a state, actually) of Massachusetts challenged the constitutionality of DOMA in regards to the Tenth Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”). DOMA, MA argued, “intrud[es] on areas of exclusive state authority” by forcing it to discriminate against its own citizens.

Let’s start with Gill (Read the full decision here in PDF). Judge Tauro introduces his conclusion as such (p. 21):

As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship”91 between DOMA and a legitimate government objective. DOMA, therefore, violates core constitutional principles of equal protection.

He describes how, even with a rational basis review, the intentions of the law must be considered. The government must have had authority to pass it and it must address the concerns that were used to pass it. Even though the government disavowed Congress’s stated justifications for passing DOMA, Judge Tauro still tackles them head-on but in the most concise of ways.

With regards to child-rearing (p. 23-24):

This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA. Since the enactment of DOMA, a consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents. But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

I love seeing language like that in a federal court! Judge Tauro also points out that procreation has never been a precondition to marriage.

The next paragraph, about “defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage” is also quite validating, to the point of being humorous (p. 25):

To begin with, this court notes that DOMA cannot possibly encourage Plaintiffs to marry members of the opposite sex because Plaintiffs are already married to members of the same sex. But more generally, this court cannot discern a means by which the federal government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses might encourage homosexual people to marry members of the opposite sex.111 And denying marriage-based benefits to same-sex spouses certainly bears no reasonable relation to any interest the government might have in making heterosexual marriages more secure.

The only other reason Congress could have sought to deny recognition of same-sex marriage is to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. Judge Tauro acknowledges that this was only achieved by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights, which the Constitution does not permit. As well, citing Lawrence v. Texas, traditionally viewing a practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law.

Next, we turn to the “new” arguments for DOMA. In defending this case, the government asserted that DOMA had to defend the “status quo” to ensure “consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits” from state to state. But Judge Tauro turned around and said that in regard to Congress having some interest in a uniform definition of marriage, “There is no such interest” (p. 28). In fact, “states have changed their marital eligibility requirements in myriad ways over time” and the government always “embraced these variations” (p. 29), and Judge Tauro cites miscegenation laws as a perfect example.

And since the government has never before defined marriage on the federal level, this gives us good reason to be suspect of the reasonableness of this law. The federal government cannot “have a legitimate interest in disregarding those family status determinations properly made by the states” (p. 32). If Congress truly wanted to maintain the status quo at the federal level, then they should have continued recognizing all state-sanctioned marriages, assuming maintaining the status quo could even be considered a legitimate government interest.

If the stated goal of DOMA was nationwide consistency of federal benefits among married couples, it had the opposite effect, because it now denies same-sex marriage couples the same benefits heterosexual couples enjoy (p. 34). There is one class by which to distinguish receipt of benefits: marital status, so to then to treat same-sex couples as a different kind of separate class “plainly cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny” (p. 35).

Here comes the conclusion. Note the use of the words “animus,” “disapproves,” and “prejudice” (pp. 37-38):

In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government’s proffered rationales, past and current, are without “footing in the realities of the subject addressed by [DOMA].” And “when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. [Because] animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest,” this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply “cannot say that [DOMA] is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.” Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

—

Now let’s take a look at Massachusetts v. HHS (Read it here on Scribd). Now we’re talking about state rights.

Here, the historic differences in how states defined marriage is much more relevant. Indeed, in the past (such as in the 1880′s), discussions were had about federal definitions of marriage and divorce but never gained much traction “because ‘few members of Congress were willing to supersede their own states’ power over marriage and divorce’” (p. 5). Judge Tauro offers a brief history of the “contentious social issue” of interracial marriage and points out that the federal government always respected how each state defined its marriages.

The first issue involves state cemeteries for veterans. Veterans Affairs gives states money to operate these cemeteries “solely for the internment of veterans, their spouses, surviving spouses,” and their children, but if the state stops operating them as veterans’ cemeteries, the VA can take back the money. Since DOMA classifies “spouse” as “opposite-sex”, the Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services learned that the VA would recapture Federal grant funds if a veteran’s same-sex spouse were buried in the cemetery. In 2008, the VA’s National Cemetery Administration declared that same-sex partners (through civil union or marriage) were ineligible for burial in any government-run veterans cemetery. Massachusetts DVS wants to bury Thomas and Darrel Hopkins together in recognition of their marriage.

The second issue regards MassHealth (MA’s comprehensive health insurance) and Medicaid. HHS reimburses MassHealth about half of its Medicaid expenditures, to the tune of billions of dollars. Because of this funding, MassHealth must abide by DOMA and recognize its own same-sex marriage citizens as though they were single. In other words, because Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, it is punished in its ability to provide health benefits to its citizens; it is forced to discriminate against couples recognized as married.

A third issue is the Medicare Tax the Commonwealth must pay for its employees. Because DOMA doesn’t recognize same-sex spouses, the Commonwealth must pay additional Medicare tax to provide benefits to its same-sex spouses AND must pay administrative services to distinguish how to properly compensate each enrollee.

The federal government had tried to claim that there was no real threat to the Commonwealth. Judge Tauro rejected this claim, stating that the Commonwealth has already suffered and will continue to suffer if these claims are not addressed.

Just to warn you, this decision is a bit more jargony, which is why I’m excerpting less of it. The government claimed that DOMA was grounded in the Spending Clause of the Constitution, but Judge Tauro found that DOMA strayed from some of the clause’s requirements.  For example, DOMA was not germane to the purposes of Medicaid or the State Veterans Cemetery Grants Program. Also, DOMA forces the state to violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection because it must treat some of its married couples differently from others.

In terms of the Tenth Amendment claim, DOMA fits all three qualifications for a violation. It imposes on the state’s statehood by imposing financial burdens (pp. 28-29). It clearly intrudes on state sovereignty in regards to family law (pp. 29-33). And, in the “key prong” of Tenth Amendment analysis, “the record includes several concrete examples of the impediments DOMA places on the Commonwealth’s basic ability to governn itself” (p. 34).

Judge Tauro concludes this ruling as such (pp. 35-36):

That the government views same-sex marriage as a contentious social issue cannot justify its intrusion on the “core of sovereignty retained by the States,” because “the Constitution … divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status.The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.

While this decision doesn’t have all the justicey feel-good language of the other, it is still just as important. These two decisions go together and support each other in a way that creates a synergistic disavowal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

As always, we will not feel the affects for a while. Because this decision was in the District of Massachusetts, it only affects Massachusetts. When it is appealed, the effect could be much wider.

The bigger question, I think, is how the Obama administration will react. As Joe Subday points out, if they decide to appeal, “it will not sit well.” In effect, our fierce advocate will be forced to defend discrimination against us. In the meantime, we have a great victory to celebrate!

We also just got word that we can expect the Prop 8 decision by the top of the hour.  That will be most exciting, and I’ll get to work on reading it too. Knowing how much testimony there was, the decision might be lengthy. I will be doing a lot of work in the coming hours.   This turned out to be a false alarm!

In the meantime, I wanted to follow up on my post the other day about the new FX show Louie and the poker-table conversation about the word “faggot.”

Louis C.K. was on NPR’s Fresh Air and talked at length about that scene and LGBT issues in general. The whole interview is really a great listen.

Fresh Air: Louis C.K. (7/7/10)

A lot people commented that the whole “burning” story isn’t known for sure to be the true etymology for how “faggot” is used today, and I loved how Louis addresses this in the interview:

I don’t know, and I’ve actually read things online where people are saying that’s not accurate. I don’t think it matters. I love that on all sorts of websites and gay blogs and stuff that this scene has sort of, like, stirred up conversation, which I think is just healthy.

And this scene is about a guy who believes that to be the true origin of the word, and it’s about his feelings about it and what impact it has on me.

If it’s not the real explanation of the word faggot, I don’t think it matters. The point of the scene isn’t to be accurate. It’s not a news show. It’s an exchange between characters.

I’m inclined to agree. Even if we cannot demonstrate the validity of the story, I think it’s an important description because it still effectively captures the power of the word. It might be more metaphorical than etymological, but I think that’s okay.

I also want to share something else Louis shares that I think fits in with all the conversation on my post yesterday and also on today’s Queer and Queerer. He talks about what gay men have to go through to be comfortable with their sexuality and how heterosexual men do not go through that:

And it’s funny because, you know, gay men have to – they’re put sort of a crucible. And I’m speak–you know, it’s not – I’m just taking liberty in saying this. Gay men have to go through something to own their – who they are. They get beat up. They get ostracized. Whatever they go through, if they survive it, they come out very confident people.

They come out having been tested and having to really figure out who they are to get through it, because I think that’s how you get through any kind of a test is by really finding your strengths and believing in yourself. So a lot of gay people who are still standing and still strong, that’s who they are.

Heterosexual men have never been put through that test. We don’t get -nobody goes, oh, my God, you like women? And you don’t have to defend it for your whole life. So we’re not so sure about our sexuality. I think that’s one reason why heterosexual men attack gay people or are afraid of them because they’re now confident and they’ve gone through this, but we don’t know who we are sexually. We’re a mess. So I think that that’s why the two sides of the sexual barrier is such an interesting – it’s such an interesting conflict.

I think Louis CK is a pretty smart guy, so definitely listen to the interview if you get a chance.

Stay tuned for several posts in a row with analysis of all today’s decisions related to same-sex marriage!

Zack is going to Netroots Nation, so he fulfills his promise to do the podcast naked! To help set the mood, Peterson reads some erotic poems. The conversation evolves into an exploration of queer culture over time and throughout different regions. How do we all move forward when some are living in the closet while others are eager to reject the norms of society? In what ways does sexual liberation overlap with queer rights and what can we glean from Zack Rosen’s decision to use his body to get votes? Tune in and then leave a comment to join today’s sexy discussion.

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

» Zack’s post about Zack Rosen offering to strip for votes. (Lots of discussion here!)

» C.P. Cavafy Homepage

» Audre Lorde and the Erotic

» “Sweet Voices” by C. P. Cavafy

» TransForm New Hampshire

You might remember a few weeks ago, I posted that I was vying for a scholarship to attend Netroots Nation, the big convention of progressive activists, in a contest called Blog 4 Equality. To enter, we had to submit blog posts or videos and then answer some questions about how attending Netroots Nation would help me grow and advance marriage equality. Freedom To Marry selected me as one of ten finalists, and then we all started rallying votes in hopes of being one of the top 3. I reached out to friends, family, colleagues, readers, listeners, and even readers of other blogs and I tweeted like crazy about it and ultimately, I earned enough votes to be declared a winner (thanks again, everybody!). I am going to Netroots Nation in a few weeks and look forward to blogging live from Las Vegas.

I want to take a moment and thank Freedom to Marry for this opportunity. Marriage equality is a tough issue, but we’re making progress. I appreciate the opportunity to get support for my own work by going to Netroots Nation, and I think this scholarship contest was great exposure for all ten finalists and our efforts toward making this world a better place to live in.

One of the other winners got his scholarship by going a very different route, and I want to write a post to talk about it.

I’ll start by giving Zack Rosen a little credit. He spells his name right.

Zack Rosen runs a site called The New Gay. I’ll be honest, I don’t read it. The name itself makes me feel alienated, as if being gay depends on being trendy. For the most part, it’s a blog about culture, and that’s all well and good, but it simply doesn’t captivate my interest. We do different things, and that’s cool. To each his own.

For the record, though, here is how Zack recently described his own site:

…a DC-based website for alternative queers. It’s a place where queer men, women and transfolk can go to read ideas, narratives and culture commentary that doesn’t talk down to its readers or make assumptions about the things they care about based on who or how they fuck.

Despite his aversion to oxford commas (damn you, AP style!), he wants to run counter to the “white male” culture of the gay community, which I can respect.

What I don’t respect is the tactic Zack Rosen used to win votes for the Blog 4 Equality Scholarship.

Like the rest of us, he submitted posts and answered questions. His focus was cultural and his tactic was to talk about his personal experiences with marriage, which is just fine.

Then, like I and some others did, he posted something on his blog to rally support from readers, which is also just fine.

Then, he veered off course, offering the following to Fleshbot (a site I won’t link you to here because it contains malware):

My solemn promise to the Fleshbot community is that if they go to the Freedom to Marry voting page and vote for Zack Rosen, and if I win, I will send in a picture of myself without that pesky sign in front of my crotch. And I’ll have a boner. So do it for me, do it for dick, do it for naked pictures of non-famous people. But please, from the bottom of my heart, vote for me. I really need your help.

This was accompanied by further descriptions of his penis as well as a picture of him naked holding a paper plate in front of his crotch.

His new plea for votes was picked up by sites like omg blog, Towleroad, and The Advocate. The Advocate piece even ended by saying, “Click here for more information on how to vote for Rosen.”

Since the winners were announced, the Advocate has posted the news of his (and his alone) winning as well as a brief interview with him about the contest, not so subtly titled, “Skin for the Win.”

At any rate, let’s be blunt. Zack’s tactic worked. He probably got a lot of votes, and there were no rules against what he did to get them. He’s going to Netroots Nation, and in the process, he got an incredible amount of publicity for himself and for his blog. He needed clicked on, he knew lots of gay men would do anything to see an erect penis, he offered an erect penis, and he got the votes. His strategy succeeded. None of us can fault him for that.

There have been a number of negative comments on the Advocate articles and such about what he did, and he responded to those yesterday when he posted the promised pictures:

Dear Fleshbot,

I want to thank everyone for helping me win a scholarship to this year’s NetRoots Nation. And a double thanks for not calling me a whore or “an embarrassment to the community,” as the commenters on other websites have done. I figure that many of the readers of this site are pretty cool, intelligent, laid back people with families and careers and interesting lives—people who also understand that a little sex or skin isn’t going to send us to the gulag.

I hope to do some good things in my life and a chance to meet the bigwigs at NetRoots should give me some decent ideas of how to get started. Actually, maybe I can start here by reminding people of three things (that most Fleshbot readers probably knew long before I wrote this):

1. Gay men’s bodies aren’t shameful things.
2. Gay sex is natural and pretty damn fun.
3. No one ever won equal rights by keeping their oppressors comfortable.

ZDR

He doesn’t mention Freedom to Marry or marriage equality, but I do agree with all three of Zack’s points. How could I not?

But I said at the top of this post that I don’t respect Zack for what he did, and rather than just call him names like some commenters did, I’d like to articulate a case for why I think his strategy was counter-intuitive. Before I proceed, let me clarify a few things.

I’m not here to rant or be petty; I don’t have to be because I won too. I just figure if no one else is going to call out the negative impact of what he did, then I will. After all, I have the same first name and I was listed first on the ballot, so I can’t rule out that some of my votes accidentally came from people trying to get a peek at his dick. More importantly, I think what he did was disrespectful to the other finalists, disrespectful to the organizations funding the scholarship, and disrespectful to the cause for marriage equality.

The overall point I want to make in this post is this: the reason Zack Rosen’s strategy worked is the reason it was a bad idea.

The gay community is very sex-positive, a point I do not lament. Unfortunately, we often get perceived as sex-driven, which only helps the cause of those who wish to define us solely by who we have sex with (and how). Mike Huckabee reminded us just two weeks ago that the “ick factor” is a driving force for anti-gay viewpoints. The ick factor is, of course, enmeshed in the history of demonization that led the gay community to become what it is. We couldn’t be out and open, so we had to sneak around to find others to connect with. Not only has there been no incentive for same-sex monogamy, there has largely been disincentive since gay folks first started coming out and organizing.

Our community has a tendency for “promiscuity” because society’s condemnation has essentially encouraged us to be promiscuous. Society also then uses the promiscuity it nurtured in us to further condemn us. I had an interesting airport conversation recently with a teabagger woman who was against same-sex marriage because gay men are promiscuous. She said that those of us who do value monogamy or have priorities greater than sex are just “exceptions,” but of course, the rest of the gay community will destroy the “institution” of marriage. Aside from Bible verses, this was her primary argument.

Now I’m not here today to preach about monogamy nor to judge promiscuity. The important point I want to make, though, is that obtaining marriage equality is going to require that we demonstrate we are not entirely sex-driven. We have to show the world that, despite their condemnations of our relationships and in spite of our own sex-positive culture, we value family, community, and qualities in people other than their body parts.

But in his attempt to win support for “the new gay,” Zack Rosen focused on the old stereotypes. He chose to use the current culture for his own benefit by reinforcing it. He said yep, marriage equality is important, but don’t you all just want to see my dick? It met his goal, but at what cost?

For one, I think his actions took away from his own credibility while marring the reputation of Freedom to Marry and to some extent, the other finalists as well. Here were nine other people vying to go to a conference based on the quality of their writing and their activism, and he bests them by showing his dick. I preferred that people support me for the work that I do. That seemed, implicitly, to be the point of the contest. I’m sure glad that the other winner turned out to be a woman, because in the gay community, I highly doubt women would have a fair shot at a superficial popularity contest.

It was almost as if Zack Rosen entered himself in a different contest. He was getting votes for his body while the rest of us were getting votes for our activism. Natasha Dillon and I won, presumably, for our work.

Now let’s not forget that there is also an onus on the masses that voted for Zack. I wonder how many of these individuals had no idea what the contest was about or who any of the other contestants were? They just wanted to see dick. Commenters on the various articles defended Zack by saying “the male body is beautiful” and he’s such a “creative thinker.” The whole community, including our most visible and widely-read publication, wanted to bring attention to his dick.

And what does it say about how this kind of coverage by The Advocate? Here is a publication working to be a voice for our community that only focused on the sexy part. The coverage never mentioned anyone’s submissions to the contest, nor the mission of Freedom to Marry and the whole point of the scholarship. Zack managed to ensure that ALL the coverage revolved entirely around his dick, including, inevitably, his own.

I write about this today because it’s just so disappointing. I’m disappointed in Zack Rosen for essentially “cheating” by getting votes for his body instead of his work. I’m disappointed in our publications for perpetuating the stereotype that cock is news and progress isn’t. I’m disappointed in all the people who eagerly voted for Zack without any consideration for the other finalists or the work that we do. And I’m disappointed in the gay community as a whole for its hedonistic ignorance of those actually trying to make things better for us. It seems, in many regards, we are still our own worst enemies.

In the end, Zack, you won. We get to spend an exciting weekend in Vegas with a whole bunch of activists and bloggers. I hope Netroots Nation helps us both grow towards accomplishing our professional goals and our active support of marriage equality. Congratulations to Natasha, and thanks again to Freedom to Marry for this wonderful opportunity.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The conversation goes a bit farther and leads a really serious discussion about the word “faggot.” It was explained perfectly and in a very respectful way, soaring above South Park’s satire Last November. I was enthralled… until the very end. Take a look (transcript below, starting at 5:28):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-55wC5dEnc

Louie: Do you think I shouldn’t be using that word on stage?

Rick: I think you should use whatever words you want. When you use it on stage, I can see it’s funny, and I don’t care. But are you interested in what it might mean to gay men?

Louie: Yeah, I am interested.

Rick: Well, the word “faggot” really means a bundle of sticks used for kindling in a fire. Now, in the middle ages, when they used to burn people they thought were witches? They used to burn homosexuals, too. And, they used to burn the witches at a stake, but they thought the homosexuals were too low and disgusting to be given a stake to be burnt on, so they used to just throw them in with the kindling, with the other faggots. So that’s how you get “flaming faggot.”

Louie: So what you’re saying is gay people are a good alternative fuel source.

Nick: That’s where they get the term, “diesel dyke.”

Louie: I’m sorry, go ahead.

Rick: You might wanna know that every gay man in America has probably had that word shouted at them while they’re being beaten up, sometimes many times, sometimes by a lot of people all at once. So, when you say it, it kind of brings that all back up. But, you know, by all means, use it. Get your laughs. But, you know, now you know what it means.

Nick: Okay, thanks faggot. We’ll keep that in mind.

So what’s the message here? To me, it feels like we get this heartfelt monologue that paints a very accurate picture of a history of  discrimination encapsulated in a single word, and then affirmation that it’s okay to use it anyway. I don’t think it’s unfair to expect that people both understand the negative experience of being gay in American and take responsibility for not contributing to it.

Alternative fuel source? That was pretty funny. But I feel so let down by the last remark.

Don’t get me wrong, I think this is good television. I love that it’s going to be on tonight. There’s a lot of good stuff in this clip. But come on, stay on message. If you’re going to try to discourage people from using hateful language, don’t then wink and say, “but it’s okay (and funny) if you still use it.”

Otherwise, you’re just like South Park, and you care more about being able to use the word to get laughs from the audience than you care about its impact on individuals.

God, I love capitalism.

So, like, as an atheist, you believe nothing? Everybody believes in something.

I shy away from using the word “believe” to describe my values, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have values! In fact, there are a lot of cool things that I support, and as an atheist, I’m not alone in this regard!

Last month, the Atheist Alliance International held a God and Politics conference in Copenhagen. At this “World Atheist Conference,” they adopted a pretty spiffy set of principles, now called the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. This list might not fit perfectly with every atheist’s principles, but I think it’s a pretty great guide. Let’s take a look at the principles declared and see what it is that we “aggressive, angry” atheists really “believe in” when it comes to religion’s role in society. (Please note: None of the principles below assert belief; they are statements of values.)

We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

This is important. We’re not trying to dictate thought. There’s a big difference between discouraging belief and prohibiting it. We don’t want you to subscribe to nonsense like religion, astrology, and homeopathy; that’s true. But we cherish free thought and imagination! We just want you to be able to tell the difference.

Though we may challenge your beliefs, we respect your right to hold them. If you could better keep them to yourselves, that’d be just swell.

We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Wasn’t that a nice segue? Your beliefs might be very important to you; they may even dictate every facet of how you live your life. We can never agree on beliefs, so to use them to enforce public policy is only going to ensure we remain divided as a society. While beliefs might disagree, reality is constant. We need evidence to support the ideas we apply widely or else we create unfair distinctions between how people are treated.

We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

That’s quite a bold claim, eh? It flies right in the face of that whole “Christian America” malarkey. But it’s true. We can only ensure the freedom of thought from the first listed principle above if we do not enforce thought through religious public policy. If we’re not working toward a society that supports the lives of all people, how dare we claim a piece of it for ourselves?

We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

I’m tempted to call out the redundancy here, but I don’t fault the atheists for trying to be very careful about describing their principles. They are quite prone to being misinterpreted and discounted by others.

We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

This says a lot without saying much. It speaks to homosexuality, abortion, drug use, and a lot of other things. We might differ on a lot of those things, but I think the basic principle is good and fair. It’s a polite way of saying, “If I’m not infringing on your life, then stay out of mine.”

We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

An important qualification! Religion should not dictate laws nor who can make laws. Is that such a bad thing?

We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

If I want to make the case that your ideas are baseless and imprudent, I should have every right to do so. No text, author, or “prophet” should be immune to critique. Let’s level the playing field.

We’re more than halfway through now… is any of this really so awful?

Have your beliefs! Just don’t expect special treatment. This is a rejection of religious privilege at its simplest.

We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

If you’re a part of our society, then our society’s governance applies to you. It’s fair and square.

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

See? You can still have your leaders. We want to let you operate within your own belief system. But if your religious institution wants to participate in the rest of society, you have to play by the rules. I’m sorry, but that’s just being fair.

We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths.  We oppose state funding for faith schools.

You want to have your own special community-building system? That’s just peachy. But don’t expect us to help you out. You tend to demonize us and reject the progress of society for the rest of us, and that’s not cool. Why should you get a financial break from us? Please, do charity work! We’ll be doing charity work too! If you want to do it with us and get a tax break, how about you just leave your pamphlets at home?

Oh, and if you want to believe in unfounded nonsense like creation? Fine. Your ideas are bogus, but you can have them. Just don’t expect us to help you spread them.

We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

I know that some of you have worked really hard to convince yourselves of certain things. But if you’re still relying on faith, then those things aren’t really “true.” We just want to be able to distinguish between the things that are true for all of us and the things that are only true for some of us.

And that’s it. These aren’t the only principles atheists hold, but they’re some important ones. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think the list is that aggressive. I don’t think it attacks anyone. It’s just saying, “We think things would be more fair this way.”

So if you’ve ever wondered what atheists “believed,” you now have a couple ideas.

Thoughts? Reactions?

Are you ready? Here are just the first two sentences of Mike Adams’ piece, “An Immodest Proposal” over at conservative site, Townhall:

I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them.

Let’s take this construction and see how it might be applied to other nouns. If you can’t stand mosquitos, maybe you’ll light some citronella candles. If you can’t stand cigarettes, maybe you’ll work to pass legislation to keep them out of public venues. If you can’t stand Jews, maybe you’ll embark upon some historic genocide. The threatening potential here is of concern, and as absurd as the rest of Adams’ piece is, this is the lens we have to keep in mind.

Now, surely you remember that Supreme Court decision last week, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez? It came up enough here on the blog. A Christian student group was paranoid that it would be infiltrated by gays and was insistent that it be allowed to discriminate so that no one could come in and try to change their hateful condemnations of groups of people. There was no precedent for this fear (there never is), but that didn’t stop them from raising a ruckus.

Well, Mike Adams wants to use the freedom of this decision to attack atheist student groups and create that very precedent of student group takeover. Like a good American, when Adams gets the slightest bit concerned that he can’t defend himself to his own absurd liking, he attacks with a preemptive strike:

So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

Let’s be very clear, here: Mike Adams is encouraging hostility and hate against atheists.

Now, you might say, “But Zack, he’s clearly trying to channel Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal! This is just satire!”

Except, there was not already a context for rich people eating babies. (There is a context of atheists eating babies, which is a neat little literary overlap, I suppose.) But there is definitely a context of hostility towards atheists, so there is no element of absurdity. Perhaps Mike Adams just sucks at satire, which is possible, but I think it’s very hard to read this piece as satire at all. I’m sure there are many who haven’t, especially on a site like Townhall. The comments confirm this.

Even if Mike Adams is trying (and failing) to be satirical, his language is reckless:

If I see any words like “atheist,” agnostic”, or even “free-thinker” I will know they are a group of godless heathens. Then we’ll move in for the kill.

The kill, eh?

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito observed that the Martinez majority has provided public universities with “a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.” Alito is right as usual. After we get rid of the heathens we’ll turn our weapon on the gays, the blacks, and the feminists. We might even go after the Italians, too.

Hilarious.

Author Craig A. James (The Religion Virus), blogger Daniel Fincke (who was cool enough to link here), and I all agree:

Bring it on.

As James points out, atheist groups would love to have Christians at their meetings!

But here’s the truth: crybaby Mike Adams won’t dare do this. You see, I happen to know Hemant Mehta over at The Friendly Atheist, and Hemant is reasonable, conciliatory, smart, and he happens to be the Chair of the Board of the Secular Student Alliance. I’d be willing to bet that if Mike Adam’s Christian students start attending the Secular Student Alliance meetings, Hemant and friends would welcome the opportunity to talk to them. In fact, I’ll bet they’d organize a national campaign to welcome these Christians into their group!

James’ entire response is brilliant, and I agree this plan would totally backfire for Mike Adams, but I wonder if it hasn’t already.

Adams, apparently an ex-atheist, proudly describes himself as “vocal critic of the diversity movement in academia.” If you look through his columns, you’ll see an incredible list of petty taunts and attacks at all kinds of diversity outreach, including cultural centers, student groups, and any administrator or professor who stands up for diversity. His racism, sexism, and heterosexism are never sugar-coated. This man strives to maintain privilege and loves it.

I’m glad I’m smarter than this man. I’m glad that I support open inclusion and accessibility for education. I’m glad that I respect even the people whose ideas I have no respect for at all. I’m glad that I understand identity development and the incredible value of creating inclusive campus environments.

Mike Adams is a hate-monger. Unabashedly. Nothing strengthens the atheist message better than having unChristian vitriol like this to quote (hence this very post). If he didn’t have archives full of similarly hateful shit, I’d wonder if this is a Poe. But it’s not a Poe, it’s just dumb.

Good luck, Mike. We’ll see what kind of “warriors” your young Christians are when they actually get to listen to the ideas folks like you work so hard to shelter them from.

I was waiting until the holiday was over to share the good news:

I’m going to Netroots Nation this month!!!

Here’s the official announcement on Open Left.

Thanks to all your diligent voting (and your tolerance of my nagging reminders to do so), I was a winner in Freedom to Marry’s Blog 4 Equality contest!!

Congratulations to all the finalists who are continuing to do wonderful work!

You can expect a lot of posts from Vegas with all the wonderful experiences I’m having there!

A lot of thanks to everybody who is helping make my trip possible. I think it speaks highly of the LGBT Netroots that there are great folks willing to be mentors to relative newbs like myself. A special thank you goes out to my friend Hemant Mehta who helped support my candidacy. Thank you atheist community!!

If you voted for me, I assume it means you care about the work that I do in some way. I surely hope it means that you appreciate my writing here on the blog, since that’s what the contest was about. If any of you who voted want to make special requests about topics I might not normally cover, feel free to leave these ideas in the comments. I so appreciate your support that I feel I have to give something back, so how about more of the quality content you voted for? Let me know, folks, and again, THANKS SO MUCH!!!

Except, I did blow a guy off like that once. And for all the reasons in the world, you’re going to think me pretty pathetic for the one that could rile me in such a way to just stop talking to someone, but hear me out.

My issue with him? The word “gay.” He was a grad student in linguistics.

Now, language is cool; I love playing with it. But this character was a descriptive linguist, through and through. We’re talking “language hippy” here. To him, there was nothing more cool or interesting than letting language just flow and be whatever it’ll be to whomever whenever. He thought the ebb and flow of language was sacred, and he would not disturb its pure and natural course regardless of the circumstances.

This did not sit well with me at all. I’m much more of a prescriptive grammarian. Words have power, and we have established rules for grammar for a very important reason: to communicate with each other as effectively as possible. I love using these rules when it comes to writing, because they allow me to write in ways that are easily comprehensible and conversational.

Consider that in this post I have already made effective use of an em dash, an oxford comma (which I will never give up—here comes another!), a semi-colon, and a colon—punctuation marks some might go their entire lives without using. And using them comes naturally to me, because my goal is to communicate as effectively as I can!

Of course, I’m not bound to cold, sterile writing. I also used “blow off,” “ebb and flow,” and “language hippy,” expressions that I’m sure you, as my reader, will understand, even though the way that I use them does not fit with their literal definitions. And so while I’m a stickler for prescriptive use of language, I also appreciate that descriptive grammar has its place.

Heck, I’m a blogger. If it weren’t for descriptive grammar, we wouldn’t have the word “blog.” Also, in a fleeting tribute to my rural roots, I have been heard to say “ya’ll” on occasion. (Come on, ya’ll, having a second-person plural can be very useful!)

Despite my flexibility, I still proudly identify as a SNOOT. You might call me a Grammar Nazi, a Syntax Snob, or the Language Police, and after I remind you about Godwin’s Law, I’ll take it as a compliment. I’m proud to know language rules and I appreciate the way they help me communicate. If new rules emerge or standards change, that’s great! Technology has certainly had a profound effect on the way we use words, and it makes perfect sense to me that we grow to accommodate this new paradigm of vocabulary and syntax. However, if we let words mean whatever they want to mean, they lose any meaning at all.

And that’s exactly why I blew off the language hippy. He thought the word “gay” had no meaning.

Somehow, we got talking about the expression “that’s so gay.” He argued that there was nothing wrong with using it to refer to something undesirable. It was just a new use of “gay.” It had nothing to do with homosexuality and it had no negative impact whatsoever on gay people. He had no problem with young people using the expression and didn’t think teachers should discourage it in any way. “It’s just the natural evolution of language,” he told me.

I was so pissed I just stopped talking to him. I found his perspective ignorant, delusional, and abhorrent. As a confident gay man and social justice educator, I still feel a little sting when people say “that’s so gay.” Usually, they are completely oblivious to the fact that “gay” actually means “homosexual,” but this ignorance is irrelevant and unforgivable. Anyone who is gay knows what the word means. And “that’s so gay” clearly derives from decades of negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians (not unlike the roots of other identity-related words like “lame,” “faggot,” and “nigger”). How this linguist could ignore the history of a word in favor of its natural fluidity just disgusted me.

Words and language have incredible power. All those “sticks and stones” and “thick skin” turns of phrase constitute propaganda spread by people who don’t want to take responsibility for their own (mis)use of language. We know that language helps maintain privilege in our society in some profound ways. We also know that language like “that’s so gay” has harsh consequences for the mental health of young people. Just because people use “gay” in that way does not make it okay to use. Achieving social justice requires we be conscientious about the words we use and that we take responsibility for their impact on others.

My brief online discourse with that linguist was years ago, but I still find myself irritated by his obliviousness. That’s why I’ll always be a prescriptive grammarian; I don’t want to ever encourage others to be lazy with their language. The consequences could be severe.

I’ll do my best to not be too SNOOTy, but friends, if I ever correct your grammar or protest your word choice, I hope you will not judge me for my tact. My goal will always be to help you be a better communicator and to make sure the language we use doesn’t hurt people. If you choose to respond defensively by disparaging me for my unyielding affect of perfectionism, hopefully the inherent subconscious negativity that concerned me in the first place will be revealed.

My article today on The Cronk of Higher Education explores how things might have been different. Here’s a preview:

In a groundbreaking decision this week, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that nondiscrimination policies at American public universities are unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision for a case named Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the court ruled in favor of the Christian student group, arguing that Hastings College of Law was violating students’ freedom of expression when it refused to recognize the group for its discrimination against “gay” and non-Christian students.

Yeah, that’s right. I used mocking quotes for “gay.”

The funny part about this satirical article is how little I had to invent.

Check it out for yourself over at the Cronk.

(Click here to see past articles I’ve written for the Cronk.)