AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE BY MICHAEL ROWE

This is an excellent article entitled, "Why It's Time for LGBT Democrats to Get Over Their Battered Wife Syndrome," that I strongly urge you to read.

This article speaks for itself, and I strongly urge you to read the whole thing, but part of it reads as follows:

In a dizzyingly short span of months, Defense Secretary Robert Gates would tell war colleges he didn't have a position on LGBT troops revealing their sexual orientation; America would meet Dan Choi and Lt. Col. Victor J. Fehrenbach, one a brilliant West Point graduate and Arab-language expert, the other a superstar fighter pilot in whom the Air Force had invested $25 million in training, both being expelled from the services under Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell would admit that there were no plans in the works to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, nor had there been any serious discussions between the White House and the military about repealing it; the Justice Department would file a spectacularly ugly brief on behalf of the Obama administration in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (a rancid cigar from another Democratic president, Bill Clinton) comparing gay marriages to incestuous unions; and Obama would sign an order granting a minuscule number of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, which somehow only served to illustrate how many benefits they still didn't have, compared to their heterosexual counterparts--notably health or retirement benefits--highlighting the inequality with bolder strokes than usual.

Share |

AN OPEN LETTER TO POTENTIAL STRAIGHT ALLIES OF LGBT PEOPLE

There are to be no second-class citizens in the United States! We established a long time ago that “separate is not equal,” and all American citizens are entitled to enjoy equality under the law. Any society that presumes to refer to itself as “decent” and “civilized” must not in any way discriminate against any group of people through its laws or their enforcement.

We should have learned this painful lesson during the struggle for African American civil rights, and we must now apply that lesson in this struggle for full and equal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (hitherto referred to as LGBT) people. LGBT people are entitled to the same rights and privileges that accrue to all other citizens of the United States

Gay people are certainly entitled to full and equal civil rights, including the right to marry! The lies and other nonsense purveyed by many self-proclaimed arbiters of “morality,” often cloaked in the guise of religion, that same-sex marriage destroys “the sanctity of marriage” is ludicrous on its face!

I have been married to my wife for forty-seven years, and I can’t see how same-sex marriage will in any way negatively impact my marriage or in any way destroy the sanctity of my marriage! No rational person can believe that same-sex marriage in any way compromises the institution of marriage, an institution that has taken many forms in our history.

As a Christian, I am profoundly embarrassed and outraged by those professing Christians who are in the vanguard of discrimination against LGBT people; who spew hateful rhetoric, borne out of their ignorance and/or their hatred and/or their avariciousness, that is diametrically opposed to anything Jesus said, lived, or taught to all who would claim to be His disciples! Indeed, Jesus saved His harshest words for those who claimed to be “godly” and yet sought to put yokes of bondage onto others!

Christians love other people, and the only Gospel to be found in Christianity is comprised of: grace (God’s unmerited favor to us), faith (trusting God over and above seen circumstances), love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness. There is no other Gospel!

Jesus makes it abundantly clear that we are to love and not judge or condemn others! Any professing Christian who thinks that he/she is representing Jesus by doing the very opposite of what Jesus told us to do is not only seriously misled, but is woefully misleading the public, many of whom are gullible enough to take the purveyors of the false gospel of legalism and perfectionism seriously.

Moreover, we are under the Constitution of the United States and we are not a Theocracy! Since when are we to take a group of people’s understanding of the Bible, an “understanding” far more informed by their preconceived prejudices than it is by anything else, and enshrine those prejudices into our laws of the land; impose those prejudices onto a minority group that all too many professing Christians and others view as being relatively “safe” to persecute?

The discrimination against LGBT people in the names of “Christianity,” “morality,” “tradition,” “the well being of our children,” and any other specious reasons given for this oppression has many of us saying: “Enough is enough!” We’re not going to take it anymore!

For those of us who are Christians, we are sick and tired of having those who would hate and/or discriminate against others presume to speak for us! For those of us who are heterosexual, we are sick and tired of watching our LGBT sisters and brothers be oppressed! For those of us who are LGBT, we are sick and tired of being viewed and treated as second-class citizens, denied marital and other rights and benefits that heterosexual tax paying citizens are given and take for granted.

In sum, LGBT rights activists demand full and equal civil rights that every other citizen of the United States possesses, and we won’t rest or stop until that goal is achieved!

Share |

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TO EXPAND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Please sign this petition to expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all its subsequent revisions and codifications to declare it the public policy of the United States that discrimination based on LGBT status is prohibited.

More than three decades ago, then-U.S. Reps. Bella Abzug and Ed Koch, both from New York, introduced the Equality Act of 1974 to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gays and lesbians. Though it didn’t pass, it set the bar high for the LGBT movement—a mark our current leadership is not even aiming for.

That will change June 29, 2009, the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, when an online organizing network called The Power officially launches a movement to expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The act already bars discrimination against race, color, religion, national origin and sex in the broader areas of employment, housing, financial credit and public accommodations.

[For the full article, see here.]

Share |

PLEASE SIGN THIS LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR LT. DAN CHOI

Please sign this letter of support for Lt. Dan Choi.

In regard to the above link, I received the following email from the Courage Campaign:


Dan Choi, a native of California and an Army Lieutenant, asked us to share this message with the Courage Campaign community.

An amazing 141,262 people signed Lt. Choi's letter to President Obama a few weeks ago. Now he needs your help again. Please forward this message to your friends and spread the word before Tuesday.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign

On Tuesday at 8 a.m., I will stand trial for speaking three truthful words: "I am gay."

On Tuesday, I will face a panel of colonels who will decide whether or not to fire me -- to discharge me for "moral and professional dereliction" under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

On Tuesday, I will try to prove that it's not immoral to tell the truth.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates.

My case requires that I provide personal testimony from people who can attest to my character. That's why several members of my military unit have written letters of support and offered to testify on my behalf.

Now I need your help. ANYONE who believes the Army should not fire me can take a stand right now. I am bringing a statement of support to Tuesday's trial and I need you to add your signature to it. Will you support me by signing this statement before Tuesday?

http://www.couragecampaign.org/SupportDan

I want to thank the 141,262 people who have signed the "Don't Fire Dan" letter launched a few weeks ago by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile to President Obama, asking him to take leadership to bring this tragic policy to an end.

The momentum is building. This week, 77 members of Congress signed a letter to the President citing my service as an example of why DADT should be repealed. And a Gallup poll was recently released showing that 69 percent of Americans -- including 58 percent of Republicans - favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve their country .

As I learned at West Point, deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force. That's why more than 70 of my fellow West Point graduates have also come out of the closet to join Knights Out, the organization I co-founded to build support for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

The only way we will eventually overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is by speaking up together. You can help me fight back right now by adding your name to my statement of support. On Tuesday morning, I will bring your signature -- and thousands of others -- to my trial as a demonstration of your collective support:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/SupportDan

National security means many things, but the thing that makes us secure in our nation and homes is love. What makes me a better soldier, leader, Christian and human being is love. And I'm not going to hide my love.

Love is worth it.

Thank you for your support.

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard

Courage Campaign Issues is part of the Courage Campaign's online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots supporters to push for progressive change and full equality in California.

Share |

CIVIL RIGHTS MUST NOT BE DETERMINED AT THE BALLOT BOX

In a group on Facebook entitled, "Rights Again in 2010," that supports trying to get Prop. 8 overturned at the ballot box next year, I wrote the following earlier this month:

We can't spend our time and tremendous amounts of monies trying to get the majority of the electorate to vote for equal rights. If integration of African Americans was put on the ballot in each state during the civil rights era, we would still have segregation and Jim Crow laws! There must be meaningful, coordinated, and aggressive grassroots, street, and organizational activism, coupled with the filing of civil suits at the federal level, to achieve equal rights. "Separate is not equal," and that fact must be, and undoubtedly will be, affirmed by the Judiciary in regard to Gay people, as it was for African Americans, and not left to the will and whim of the majority of the electorate, for to do so demeans Gay people, and puts each and every minority group's rights up for grabs. We would never think of putting one or more civil rights of Jews, of African Americans, of Asians, etc. on the ballot to be voted upon, and Gay people's civil rights must not be treated any differently.

It is demeaning to go hat in hand, beseeching people to vote for the civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy and even take for granted! Self-respect and dignity would demand that this fight be won in the Legislative and Judicial branches of government!

Just as it is naive for people to hold out hope that Obama really wants to annul DADT and get Congress to repeal DOMA but hasn't yet gotten around to doing so, it is naive to hold out hope that most of the electorate will grant full and equal civil rights to any minority group out of the goodness of their hearts, out of "the milk of human kindness."

The ratification of Prop. 8 at the polls last November, and the California State Supreme Court's upholding that vote last month; Obama showing no evidence of desiring to repeal DADT as he promised he would in his electioneering; Obama's Dept. of Justice assiduously defending DOMA in federal court, even going so far as to invoke the specter of incest in defending that policy, all have served to bring the revulsion felt by LGBT people and allies at the second-class status of LGBT people in the United States to a critical mass, where the necessary coordinated, meaningful grassroots and organizational activism is becoming more of a reality.

Part of that activism is due to occur on October 11, 2009 in a March on Washington, led by Cleve Jones who was an associate of Harvey Milk.

Another important part of that activism is articulated in The Dallas Principles.

Share |

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF IGNORANCE AND ABUSE

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. -- The video shows the 16-year-old boy lying on the floor, his body convulsing, as elders of a Connecticut church cast a "homosexual demon" from his body.
"Rip it from his throat!" a woman yells. "Come on, you homosexual demon! You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now!

Loose your grip, Lucifer!"

The 20-minute video posted on YouTube by Manifested Glory Ministries is being called abuse by gay and youth advocates, who demand an investigation. But a church official denied that the teenager was injured or the church is prejudiced.

"We believe a man should be with a woman and a woman should be with a man," the Rev. Patricia McKinney said. "We have nothing against homosexuals. I just don't agree with their lifestyle."

[For the full article, see here]

Here is the video:

Share |

IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE

In an article that appeared today entitled, "GLAAD criticizes Hilton for anti-gay slurs," part of it reads as follows:

The openly gay Hilton called Black Eyes Peas singer will.i.am a "f****t" after the two reportedly were involved in a heated confrontation.....

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has criticized Hollywood gossip blogger Perez Hilton for using anti-gay slurs in a recent online video.....

In Hilton's video blog, he ranted at the recording artist: "I don't need to respect you, and you're a fag. You're gay, and stop being such a faggot," E! News reported.

[For the full article, see here.]

Part of Glaad's statement reads as follows:

"These are vulgar anti-gay slurs that feed a climate of hatred and intolerance toward our community," said Rashad Robinson, Senior Director of Media Programs at GLAAD. “For someone in our own community to use it to attack another person by saying that it is, quote, ‘The worst possible thing that thug would ever want to hear,’ is incredibly dangerous. It legitimizes use of a slur that is often linked to violence against our community. And it sends a message that it is OK to attempt to dehumanize people by exploiting anti-gay attitudes.”

[For the full statement, see here.]

Of course, GLAAD is right! And Hilton is affirming and reinforcing the hateful stereotype used by the oppressor that gay men are just fags and, therefore, he is reported as saying, "I don't need to respect you." Nothing could be clearer: "Gay people are mere fags who don't deserve respect!" And this message is communicated by a gay man!

The use of such epithets as "fag" are, indeed, hateful, and it's a mystery to me why anyone would want to take a hateful word used by those who oppress them, and appropriate it for themselves and trick themselves into believing that they are somehow neutralizing that word, or somehow empowering themselves by its use. If one thinks that the context in the use of such words is important, think again!

I've heard some Gay people say that use of such words as "fag," "dyke," etc. are terms of empowerment and even endearment when use with one another. There is nothing "empowering" or "endearing" in the use of terms that have historically been used and are continually being used to oppress, and serve as rationalizations to oppress, LGBT people. To believe that such words are "neutralizing," "empowering," or are "terms of endearment" is to mystify the reality that their use merely shows how vulnerable how self-loathing, and how in agreement the oppressed is with the oppressor.

By using hateful words as self-identifiers merely shows the hearer of those words what one truly thinks of him/herself! If I refer to myself as a "kike," that clearly denotes the conscious or unconscious shame and/or self-loathing that I feel in being Jewish. There is nothing "empowering" or "endearing" about that term, and I think that virtually everyone would agree. I know of no Jewish person who would ever use that term with which to identify him/herself, and I daresay you don't either.

When one is oppressed, when one hears negative and hateful messages throughout his/her life about who he/she is, those messages and their reinforcement can't but have a traumatic effect on that person, and that person finds ways to shield him/herself from the hurt of those messages. Yet, to take the route of using such a shield as using the very words that the oppressor uses, even when they're beating or killing Gay people is, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

It's counterproductive for the long-term well-being of the psyche of the oppressed person, and it is counterproductive for the dignity and self-respect that is needed to be seen by both potential Straight allies as well as by the oppressor in the civil rights struggle for LGBT people.

By not using such hateful words, the message is being given that, "I have self-respect, I have dignity, and I demand that I have every single civil right that any other citizen possesses!"

It should be remembered, for the good of this civil rights struggle, that one doesn't have to be a logician to see that if one uses a term used by one's oppressor as a form of "empowerment" or "endearment," that that person on some psychological level finds that oppressor "endearing," and that by vicariously identifying with that oppressor a "power" is conveyed that that person seeks.

And conveying powerlessness is not the way to win full and equal civil rights! Nor is it good for one's emotional well-being!

Share |

THE "HOUSE NEGRO" AND THE "FIELD NEGRO" IN THE LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE

Malcolm X, during the struggle for African American civil rights, made a great distinction between two types of Black people: the House Negro and the Field Negro. The following brief video details what he meant by making this crucial distinction:



In his June 20th post, Mike Signorile wrote:

This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.

It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- most all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT.

[For the full article, see here.]

It will be the House Negroes of the "gay leadership" who will attend that party; it will be the Field Negroes of the "gay leadership" who have the strength of character to pass up the pseudo-conviviality, the cocktails, the finger food, and the photo-ops until Obama immediately rescinds DADT, and actively works with Congress to repeal DOMA.

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog puts it best, just as he saw the relevance of using Malcolm's distinction between the House Negro and the Field Negro in the context of the struggle for LGBT civil rights:

...the rumor we heard last week is apparently true. We found out today that the White House has decided to throw a big gay party at the end of the month. It's clear that the purpose is two-fold. First, the White House is trying, again, to surround the president with A-list gays in order to show how "gay friendly" he is - he's even willing to give a speech in a room full of them for a full 8 minutes! And second, the White House hopes that a little champagne and fancy food will convince the A-listers to throw the rest of you overboard. Because, after all, what's two gay service members discharged a day and an ongoing effort to legally label you as akin to pedophila and incest, when there's champagne to be served.

[For the full post, see here.]

Tellingly, in his June 21st post entitled, "When Crumbs Suffice,", he writes, in part:

...you're witnessing the problem with our [LGBT] community's leadership, first hand. They, and so many of us, have been beaten down for so long that we expect the beatings. Pain and disappointment have become the new normal. We expect to be treated like second-class citizens. We expect to be slapped in the face and knifed in the back by our friends because, we tell ourselves, the other guy is even worse.

And like the good beaten spouse, we always come back for more because it's all we know, and at least it's something.

Wanna bet that all, or almost all, of those invited will attend?

Share |

OBAMA AND BARNEY FRANK: WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE WE DON'T NEED ENEMIES

JUNE 24TH UPDATE TAKEN FROM AmericaBlog: Obama won't use executive power to end gay discharges -- despite request from 77 members of Congress:

Via Kerry Eleveld from The Advocate, the White House once again made it very clear that the President will continue to refuse to put an immediate stop the Don't Ask Don't Tell discharges via a stop-loss order - he will only consider a legislative solution, meaning, let someone else take the blame:
The White House has responded to an inquiry from The Advocate about a letter sent from 77 House members Monday urging President Barack Obama to take immediate action to stop the investigations of "don't ask, don't tell" violations.

"President Obama remains committed to a legislative repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which he believes will provide a durable and lasting solution to this issue. He welcomes the commitment of these members to seeing Congress take action," read the statement.

[For the full post, see here.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the morning of June 17th:

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, one of the nation’s leading gay rights champions, blasted President Obama yesterday over a controversial anti-gay marriage court filing and is calling on the commander in chief to explain himself. [See here.]

Now, read the following from AmericaBlog:

Well, it seems a trip to the Oval Office is all openly gay congressman Barney Frank needs to stab his community in the back. After criticizing the DOJ's anti-gay DOMA brief this morning, Frank did a 180 this evening and lauded the brief, which invoked incest and pedophilia. Frank now thinks the brief is just super.

Frank claims that he gave a newspaper reporter his negative opinion of the brief without actually having read it....

Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I'm told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we're better than the Republicans - by repeating their arguments in court.

[For the full post, see here.]

Barney Frank, as intelligent as he is, is not immune to co-optation and exercising the well known tactic of political expediency. Just as he threw Transgender people under the bus when ENDA was being discussed in Congress, he has broadened that tactic to, in this case, throw Gay people in general under the bus for reasons that are currently unknown.

To seek to "justify" throwing Transgender people under the bus when ENDA was being discussed, he said the following:

...it is never possible for us at any given time to get everything that we would like, and so we have to make difficult choices. But it is important to remember that the good part of this greatly outweighs the bad. Going from a situation in which all we can do is to prevent bad things from happening to one in which we have to decide exactly how much good is achievable and what strategic choices we must make to get there is a great advance. [See here.]

And his decision to delete Transgender people from the bill to gain non-employment discrimination turned out to be both a betrayal and, still, futile for the passage of that bill! Apparently he hasn't learned from that mistake, as he appears to remain a typical politician who continues to view civil rights in political and not in moral terms!

And full equality for LGBT people is, if anything, a supremely moral issue! Indeed, it is the major moral issue of our time!

"Politics is the art of compromise," and there can be no compromise when it comes to the acquisition of full and equal civil rights!

In a press release on his site, Barney Frank explained his turnabout from morning to evening on the federal court case in this way:

PRESS RELEASE

Congressman Frank Corrects Media Reports on his Response to DOMA Brief
June 17, 2009

Congressman Barney Frank issued the following statement in response to a newspaper story regarding his position on the brief by the Department of Justice about Smelt v. United States.

“When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.”

“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”

“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”

“I strongly opposed DOMA when it was adopted and I will continue to fight for changes. I support very strongly the lawsuit brought by the people at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) that make the cogent argument that DOMA’s provision denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages blatantly violates the equal protection clause. And I will work with the Obama administration as they have promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.” [See here.]

I don't for a minute believe that a smart guy like Frank didn't read that bill before commenting on it! I believe that his turnaround is based on nothing but his view of political expediency that he showed in the ENDA debacle.

His latest use of this tactic of political expediency (as he seems to see it) just goes to again show that we can't count on "liberal" politicians, despite their campaign and other rhetoric, to support full and equal civil rights for LGBT people!

In fact, regarding Obama, no one should have ever believed that he was a particular friend of Gay people when he had Rick Warren give the invocation at his inaugural ceremony; had homophobe Donnie McClurkin along during part of his campaigning; has spoken about his belief that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman. Also, although Obama promised to rescind DADT (which as President he can easily do), he has yet to show any sign of desiring to live up to that campaign promise.

In any case, it was Barney Frank who said regarding U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Beyond exerting official power against homosexuals, Scalia is an outspoken and high-profile homophobe. After the aforementioned sarcastic remarks about gay people's relationships, can anyone doubt how little respect he has for LGBT Americans? Even if no case touching gay rights ever came before him, his comments from the bench (that employment non-discrimination is some kind of "homosexual agenda," etc.) and within our very walls are unacceptable to any self-respecting gay person or principled opponent of discrimination. The idea that I should have treated a man with such repugnant views with deference because he is a high government official evinces either a dangerously un-American acceptance of authority or insensitivity to the gay community's grievances." [See here]

Yet, who is worse? Scalia who is clearly a homophobe whom we know is likely to vote against equal rights for Gay people, or the Obamas and Franks of the political world who can say one thing but, when push comes to shove, defer to people and/or forces that work against full and equal civil rights for LGBT people?

Frankly, I prefer to deal with a Scalia because I know where he stands, and there is no mystification or false hope generated by his rhetoric and expressed values. Hence, there is likely generated a fire in the belly in those who take equal rights seriously enough to confront those with values such as those held by a Scalia, and meaningfully agitate for the change needed to gain equal rights.

With an Obama or a Frank, we don't know where they stand, and they give false hope to people who feel they have reason to blindly trust them and trust their rhetoric. Regarding Frank, in the morning he speaks against Obama's Dept. of Justice anti-Gay DOMA brief, and then later in the day he strongly supports that brief.

It is only when sufficient political pressure is brought to bear, which entails coordinated grassroots, street, and organizational activism, that full and equal rights will be acquired, and not one bit before.

And, without such activism, if anyone is counting on any politician, "liberal" or not, to fight for those equal rights, he/she is going to wait for a very, very, long time!

Share |

NO EXPIRATION DATE ON HATE

Leonard Pitts wrote an excellent article entitled, No expiration date on hate that I urge you to read in its entirety. He writes of the coarsening of our culture; the people who need a group to hate for one or more of assorted reasons.

After listening to many radio talk shows, it doesn't take much time to figure out that all too many media personalities have made the inculcation and reinforcement of hate into an American pastime. They, and so many others, both allow the dark sides of their psyches to rule them, and also tap into the dark sides of all too many people who are gullible enough to seek scapegoats for their own emotional and/or economic deprivations.

Although he doesn't specifically mention LGBT people, Pitts' article is certainly applicable here as well, as can, for example, be seen here.

Here is a part of Pitts' article:

...what a shock it is to wake up 40 years later in a world where the intercultural dialogue we thought we’d mastered has become a shrill circus overrun by haters and opportunists, a world where on any given day one might be assaulted by the casual anti-Semitism and homophobia that afflict so much of the African-American community, or the racist patter of a washed-up TV star who has mistaken freedom of speech for freedom from thought, or the gassy posturing of political and media figures who happily, disingenuously trivialize the rawest wounds of the American experience for ratings and political position.

We act as if it were all a game, as if it means nothing when people of position and visibility spew garbage, validating and galvanizing the unhinged and the disaffected who need little encouragement to believe all their problems are caused by Them. We act as if we do not toy with fire when people of authority claim white Christians are a victimized minority or Hispanics a threatening and faceless Other. We act as if we were not heirs and witnesses to a blood-soaked history that tells us exactly where this hate some of us so fecklessly stoke will logically, inevitably lead.

[For the full article, see here]

Share |

PATRICIA CLARKSON SPEAKS BEFORE THE HRC

Emmy award winning actress Patricia Clarkson gave a rousing speech before the Human Rights Campaign in New Orleans the other day, and it worth your while to listen to it:



All across this country, regular Americans who were born and bred in towns where a gay couple wouldn't dare walk down a street--all over these American Main Streets--something is changing.

Blue-collar guys are looking up from their work, grandmothers are speaking up at the dinner table; and they are saying something to members of their family, and co-workers, who are against gay marriage.

They are saying in one, increasingly-loud American voice, "Honey, rather than worry about who someone else loves--and why, think about who you hate--and why!"

[Thanks to the Huffington Post.]

Although I feel that this was a very good speech, I think that she's overly optimistic about the homophobic and/or indolent politicians and reactionary religious leaders looking ridiculous. They have a lot of followers and, although "the train has left the station," the next stop is many miles ahead, and the train will need a lot of pushing by activists to get it to that final stop.

For example:

The Democratic party at its homophobic, spineless, cynical best. Obama won't do squat on Don't Ask Don't Tell, he says it's the Congress' job. Harry Reid won't do squat on Don't Ask Don't Tell, he says it's Obama's job. And neither Reid nor Obama plan on doing anything to make anything happen on this issue.

It's not a priority for either of them. They'd rather pass a health care reform bill that excludes gay families from benefits.

[For the full article, see here.]

And, as I have written before, Obama could rescind DADT right now if he wanted to do so!

So we have a "liberal" President who is passing the buck to Congress," and we have a "liberal" Democrat passing the buck to Obama. This political shell game shouldn't inspire confidence in even the most fervent Obamamaniac!

Clarkson aptly quotes Winston Churchill: "Americans are always ready to do the right thing. After they have exhausted all the other possibilities."

Churchill hit the nail on the head, but the unfortunate fact is that the strident homophobes have not exhausted "all the other possibilities." Not by a long shot!

And without meaningful coordinated grassroots and organizational activism by LGBT people and allies who know that we will have to go through that "season of suffering" that Martin Luther King emphasized, that dark night of America's collective soul, and the continuing second-class citizenship of LGBT people, will last much longer than any of us would want.

And the Obamas and Reids of the political world will continue their political machinations at the expense of LGBT people; homophobic clergy will be able to continue to spew their hateful rhetoric with impunity as well.

Share |

WHAT GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE EXPECTING

Mike Rogers at blogActive.com has an interesting post regarding what we must expect from Obama regarding equal rights for LGBT people.

Part of his June 14th post reads as follows:

How long we are expected to wait? To what end do we support the Administration without knowing anything of its plan (and worse, its lack of action)? Do we wait until after the 2010 midterms to 'protect our majority'? Do we wait until the end of 2012 after he is reelected? Or do we wait until the 2014 midterms to keep Congress? Perhaps we are expected to wait until year 7 of his administration (assuming he hasn't tossed aside so many supporters that he loses). Perhaps they will ask us to hold off until 2017, because, after all, we don't want to lose the White House.

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog states the following:

Relations are not going to get better between President Obama and the gay community - and in fact, they're going to keep deteriorating - until the White House does something real to move the agenda forward on DOMA, ENDA and DADT (and an openly gay cabinet appointee wouldn't hurt either). No more empty statements of "support." No more explanations as to how powerless you are to get anything done. We want action. You're the president of the free world. Act like it.

[For the full article, see here.]

Please also look at the comments to their posts, as they represent increasing disillusionment and anger at the betrayal of the Obama administration.

Share |

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGAINST DOMA

The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court, saying it is not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California.

The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

[For the full article, see here

John Aravosis of Americablog, has a thorough, disturbing, and tragically predictable post about the Obama Administration essentially defending DOMA in this case in federal court.

The title of his post is Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children."

As of this time, his post is continually being updated, as he goes through the full 50 page brief filed by the Obama Administration. However, a small part of his post reads as follows:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable. And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent."

And, part of the 50 page brief from the Obama Administration reads as follows:

Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.

What happened to "Yes we can?"

Share |

A MUST READ: MARCH DOWN BABYLON

Don Charles wrote another superb post on his blog,"Christ, The Gay Martyr," to which I want to call your attention and that I hope you read in its entirety. It is a three-part post, and well deserving of serious consideration and implementation.

The title of his post is March Down Babylon, and I think that by reading his post you will see the accuracy of that title as not only being faithful to the contents of his post, but as also being faithful to the tragic impasse at which the struggle for Gay rights currently finds itself.

Part of his three-part post reads as follows:

It's fundie preachers who liken us to murderers, rapists, thieves, prostitutes and hard drug abusers. Their mendacious doctrine is the core reason why Gay kids are bullied, Gay Boy Scouts are banned, and Gay soldiers are forced to hide their sexual orientation; why LGBT topics can't be discussed in most schools; why Gay adoption and foster-parenting is controversial; why community leaders, athletes and celebrities who are Gay cower in the closet; why Lesbian couples aren't depicted in TV commercials; why movie projects with LGBT characters and non-comedic subject matter lack for funding in Hollywood. It's why efforts to repeal DOMA and pass ENDA repeatedly stall in Congress. Worst of all, it's why hate crimes happen to us. We're being maimed and killed as a result of this demonization!

Our worst troubles can be traced back to some church pulpit or other. These so-called houses of God are anything but! Once upon a time, Babylon was a wicked city. Now, it's a wicked church, filled with twice as much evil than that fabled city ever contained.

Beyond detailing many of the reasons for the relative lack of traction, and some notable losses, of a forward momentum for full and equal civil rights for Gay people, Don Charles suggests viable remedies to move the acquisition of equal rights forward in a meaningful way.

It's no accident that homophobic clergy are still allowed to spew their venom; it's no accident that a "liberal" like Obama is not desirous of immediately repealing DADT or DOMA; it's no accident that homophobes can lie about Gay people's lives with impunity; it's no accident that religious homophobes can profit from Joseph Goebbels' [Hitler's propaganda minister] assertion that no matter how big the lie, if it's repeated often enough people will come to believe it.

What can we do to diminish or even abort hateful rhetoric and discrimination against LGBT people? What are some viable tactics that we can utilize to shut he mouths of haters, and educate potential Straight allies as to the necessity of not tolerating second-class citizenship of Gay people who are currently bereft of equal rights that Straight people enjoy? What can we do to shorten the time when there will be equal rights for LGBT people?

Read Don Charles' excellent three part post MARCH DOWN BABYLON to help answer these questions!

Share |

OBAMA SHOWS NO DESIRE TO REMOVE DADT

Rep. Rush Holt, a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was interviewed by Rachel Maddow yesterday on DADT and Obama's ability to repeal it. This video is worth your while to see, as it again points out that Obama could do away with that discriminatory and demeaning law if he wanted to but, despite his election promises to repeal it, he shows no desire to do so.



[Thanks to The Advocate.]

On the campaign trail Barack Obama pledged to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. During his first days in office, he reiterated his stance. Yet on Monday, with the legal backing of the Obama administration, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier's challenge to the law.

[For the full article, see here.]

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. "He's a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar," Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. "This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people," he added. "If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately" upon taking office to begin working to lift "Don't ask, don't tell."

[For the full article, see here.]

What makes Obama's seeming hostility to rescinding DADT even more despicable is the following:

Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. "While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue," the polling firm reported last Friday, "the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move."

[For the full article, see here.]

So, even with most of the American people in favor of removing DADT, and even most conservatives also in favor of removing that demeaning and likely illegal law, Obama still won't rescind it, showing him to be a two-faced odious politician who has played LGBT people and others who had hopes that he would live up to his lofty electioneering rhetoric as suckers.

Share |

TOXIC RELIGION AND SELF LOATHING

It must be emphasized that there is literally a world of difference between having a relationship with God and one's adherence to the construction of man-made religion! A relationship with God defines love and compassion as its essence, and when legalism and perfectionism enter the framework and dialogue of religiosity we can be sure that "religion" has trumped any "relationship with God" that that person may or may not have had.

Just because a person is a member of the clergy, or is a professing Christian lay person, doesn't necessarily mean that he or she has a relationship with God! We can safely say that he or she might be "religious," but that might well be far different from his/her having a relationship with God!

For example, many people have a relationship with God through one or more of the Church's sacraments, and that is authentic and meaningful for them; there is absolutely nothing wrong with having the sacraments be a vehicle or a vessel upon which to base and reinforce that relationship.

Others may have a relationship with God that is experiential apart from sacramental worship, and that, too, is authentic and meaningful for them; there is absolutely nothing wrong with having that experience or series of experiences be ones upon which to base and reinforce that relationship.

In other words, in Christianity, as in life, one size doesn't fit all!

However, regardless of the dynamics of one's relationship with Christ, Christianity is based solely on the Person of Christ!

Christianity knows nothing of man-made constructs that seek to replace Christ as the center of our lives! Neither the Bible nor any other man-made artifact is to substitute for the Person of Jesus in the lives of those whom He chose from the foundation of the world (e.g. Ephesians 1:4); no authentic teaching and preaching is to have as its subject anything other than Christ!

Jesus clearly tells us how to live the Christian life in the Gospels; His teaching is elaborated primarily by the Apostle Paul who is the main Apostle who explicates the Gospel (primarily in the Book of Romans and the Book of Galatians) that Christians, disciples of Christ, are to preach and live out.

As I've written many times, the only Gospel to be found in Christianity is comprised of: Grace (God's unmerited favor to us); Faith (trusting God over and above seen circumstances); Love (agape love which is love not based upon one's feelings but upon an act of the will independently of how one feels); Peace ("cessation of againstness," where we are at peace both with God and with others to the degree that the latter is possible); Reconciliation (with God and with each other to the degree that the latter is possible); Inclusiveness (where we recognize that we are all brothers and sisters who are equal in the eyes of God).

The purity of the Gospel reflects the purity of Christ, and to be a follower of Christ requires adherence to the Gospel that is implanted in the hearts of each and every one of Christ's disciples. And the ability to adhere to the Gospel is made possible by the Holy Spirit Who is implanted within us by God!

Anyone who perverts the Gospel does a grave injustice to the life, teachings, and ministry of Jesus; causes untold harm to vulnerable people in society who are victimized by the perverters of the Gospel; causes untold harm to people who are gullible enough to believe what the perverters call "Christianity," comprising and manifesting the false gospel of legalism and perfectionism; sticks a knife in the heart of God with each and every utterance and/or action that reflects that perversion.

Toxic religion in the name of "Christianity" has as one of its major consequences the understandable perception by many decent and intelligent people that a Christian is some harsh, censorious, judgmental freak who obsesses over what I call "The Theology of Genital Placement!" In the view of these perverters of the Gospel, genital placement becomes the litmus test of one's morality and one's standing with God, which tells us a lot about their own likely emotional/sexual insecurities and/or pathologies!

And this toxicity has infected most of the institutional Church; the perception many people have of Christians and of Christianity; the framing of what is called "Christianity" in most of the institutional Church and in the public square; the psychological, social, political, and even judicial dimensions of our lives.

Toxic religion has most notably spawned generations of guilt-ridden people who are made to feel that God doesn't love them because they are Gay! Although nothing could be further from the truth, the big lie perpetrated by the perverters of the false gospel of legalism and perfectionism has so infused our culture that the psyches of virtually everyone, Gay and Straight, have been affected to the degree that even seemingly reasonable people have come to accept many clergy's preconceived prejudices having to do with a distorted view of love and sexuality, and their perverted theology of genital placement that seems to be the hub of the wheel that defines their own form of what they mistakenly call "Christianity."

This article, entitled, "Gay Liberty University alum recalls repression at school" is about a young gay man, Jud Brown, who went to Liberty University founded by the late Jerry Falwell in 1971, and tells a bit about his struggles with being a Christian and being gay. It is not a particularly good article, but it's worth briefly exploring, given the destructive impact that toxic religion has had on him and on countless others.

I'm grateful to my good friend, Don Charles who blogs at "Christ, The Gay Martyr", for forwarding this article to me, and that I hope you will read in its entirety!

Here are some key excerpts from that article to which I want to call your attention:

Brown said there were other gay students at Liberty University who were having difficulty coping with their sexual orientation. He said he found gay porn on his roommate’s computer after using it one day.

“I’m not proud of it to this day, but because I was so guilt-ridden about my own sexuality, I was very intolerant toward him and I turned him into my [resident advisers],” he said....

Despite the experiences, Brown said he enjoyed his time at Liberty University because the school espoused Christian values that he shares.

“I have Christian values and identify myself as a Christian and there’s a lot of things that I believe that Liberty taught that are right — even though I don’t live up to them sometimes,” he said.

Brown said he doesn’t believe that it’s healthy to be promiscuous, drink to excess or do recreational drugs — values that he said Liberty University teaches. [MY NOTE: Even most atheists believe in living decently; "decency" is not restricted to Christians.]

He also said he enjoyed attending Liberty University because it was controversial and provoked interesting responses when he told people where he attended school....

Brown said he enjoyed his experience at Liberty University so much that, after obtaining his undergraduate degree, he went on to work to obtain a master’s degree in education through the school....

“I’m very comfortable being gay, but to be honest, I have one foot firmly planted in that past, and one foot firmly planted in being OK with being gay,” he said. “I have to kind of balance or find a neutral territory.”

Brown also said Liberty University shouldn’t be blamed for being intolerant of homosexuality.

“It’s a Christian culture and they have their own traditions, they have their own belief structures and you can’t go into a Christian structure and say, ‘You got to be OK with being gay,’” he said. “They don’t believe it.”

This young man's mindset greatly disturbs me! And I'm afraid that he represents not an insignificant number of Gay Christians who are ambivalent about their being able to reconcile (as if there has to be any attempt at reconciliation in the first place) between their being Christian and their being Gay.

Like so many others, he doesn't seem to see that God makes each and every one of us according to His/Her sovereign will, and we are to never chafe under the sovereign choices of God! There is no greater gift that God gives us than the ability to love others and to make a commitment to another human being with whom to share one's life!

This young man while at that university turns in his room mate, believing that his room mate will likely be expelled or, at the very least, be profoundly embarrassed, and he betrays him anyway. This alone says a lot about his degree of self-loathing that he sought to displace by undoubtedly using the defense mechanism of Reaction Formation, in part to likely deflect attention away from his own sexuality which he seemingly viewed at that time as being "sinful." By turning in his room mate, he may have thought that no one would question his own sexuality and, therefore, he acted in this traitorous, despicable, manner.

Also, he is apologizing for Liberty University, ignoring the tremendous harm that Jerry Falwell and that university did, and continue to do, to LGBT people and their families. And, to top it all off, he calls Liberty University "a Christian structure" and says it's not OK in that university for one to say it's OK to be gay because "They don't believe it."

It never seems to occur to him that just because "they don't believe it" doesn't make it true, and doesn't demand confronting within a professing "Christian structure" the lie that one can't be a Christian and also be a Gay man or woman who lives an abundant life as Jesus calls each of us to do.

And, despite his saying, "I'm very comfortable being gay....", his statement doesn't ring true to me, and I doubt that deep down he really believes it either, because he goes on to say, I have one foot firmly planted in that past, and one foot firmly planted in being OK with being gay....“I have to kind of balance or find a neutral territory.”

Toxic Christianity seems to have inculcated within him, and within so many others, the false belief that he feels that he has to "have a kind of balance or find a neutral territory," when that is a false notion and still shows him to believe that there is an inherent contradiction between being a Christian and being Gay.

He fails to recognize that he is already "balanced" in his being a Christian and his being a gay man! Like every other person who has experienced toxicity in his (or her) past, he doesn't have to "have one foot firmly planted in that past," and yet he still does, indicating his not perceiving his God-given "balance" as a Gay Christian.

Self-loathing people don't really believe that God makes each of us according to His sovereign will and, therefore, many feel the need to do something to "balance" their past with their present; their Christianity with their sexuality; the hateful messages "in the name of God" to which they have been exposed and the reality of their own experience of their lives. They don't realize that they are already "balanced" because God created them as balanced, and only they can let others' prejudicial rhetoric and/or actions blind them to and/or interfere with that balance.

And, tragically, many succumb to a falsely perceived lack of balance (often accompanied by despair and often by a whole host of risk taking behaviors) or spend the rest of their lives searching for that balance (also often accompanied by a whole host of risk taking behaviors), not recognizing that the balance they seek they have always possessed because that balance was given to them by God even before they left their mother's womb.

And, to make matters worse for himself, Jud seems to apologize for Liberty University, affirming that it is manifesting Christian virtues and values. Indeed, he even went to graduate school at that university, even after knowing and living through its antipathy toward same-sex love, and after hearing so many of the demagogic diatribes that the late Jerry Falwell visited upon Gay people, their families, and Straight people who were gullible enough to accept his perverted version of Christianity that was and is antithetical to the Gospel.

I don't know this young man, but I was very disturbed by this article and by my distinct feeling that he is not all that comfortable with the integration of his Christian life with his emotional/sexual life. He still seems to be in turmoil, and professes to have evolved to a place that he doesn't seem to occupy.

He strikes me as a person who is likely fraught with guilt and some degree of self-loathing, as he also announces for the world to hear that Liberty University is "a Christian structure," thereby consciously or unconsciously affirming the hateful rhetoric of Jerry Falwell and those of his ilk who falsely teach and preach that Christianity is antithetical to one's being Gay.

How purveyors of homophobia, ignorance, and even hate can be considered to be housed within the Christian paradigm, within "a Christian structure," is a mystery to me!

And whatever struggles, doubts, sufferings, and guilt that the Jud Browns of the world have are not only completely unnecessary, but have been foisted upon them by purveyors of toxic religion, many of whom call themselves "Christians," but who show themselves to know (or care) absolutely nothing about the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus! And so many tragically believe these purveyors of toxic religion who help cause untold suffering of Gay people; parents to kick their Gay children out of the house; loss of jobs; suicides, assaults, and even murders of Gay people.

And so many people, many of whom are well-meaning, have become so poisoned by this toxic religion, drinking its Kool Aid, that they accept the lies of godless clergy and their followers, and even seek to make excuses for the often hateful clergy and organizational structures that presume to call themselves "Christian," but that seem to have a far greater affinity for the demonic than they have for God!

Share |

WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF IF MCCAIN HAD BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT

This article by Deb Price entitled, "Democratic inaction frustrates gay equality activists," highlights two main points that I feel must be fully understood:

1. We can't count on politicians out of the goodness of their hearts to take the lead in acquiring equal rights for LGBT people. There must be coordinated grassroots and organizational activism that pressures him and other politicians, including judges, to see to it that there are to be no second class citizens in the United States.

2. We might well have been better off if McCain had won the election in regard to civil rights for LGBT people, in that liberals wouldn't have been falling all over themselves hoping against hope that Obama has his heart in the right place, and in the fullness of time he'll come through and see to it that there is full equality for Gay people. Had McCain won the election, there would have been no mystification concerning equal rights and, therefore, there might have been enough anger generated to have provoked far more expressed rage at this injustice than we now see evidenced.

I think enough time has elapsed to show Obama to be just another two-faced politician! When you get beyond the empty rhetoric, the youth, the charm, and the winning smile, there is little there, and we can't count on either him or any other politician to do what needs to be done to achieve equal rights.

Part of Deb Price's commentary reads as follows, and I urge you to read her commentary in full:

The November presidential election results signaled the opening of a huge window of opportunity for gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Yet, as a ticking clock points out at the Web site of a new grassroots uprising, President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are in their fifth month of political power with "0% Equality Achieved."

Share |

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

The governor of New Hampshire says it's now time for the federal government to extend full equal rights to same-sex couples.

New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage Wednesday.

Gov. John Lynch - who personally opposes gay marriage - signed the legislation after lawmakers agreed that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

[For the full article, see here.]

It's terrific that same-sex marriage was approved by the New Hampshire State Legislature and approved by Governor, John Lynch.

Of course, it's tragic that churches are exempt from non-discrimination, especially since they inexplicably enjoy tax-exempt status and are, therefore, partially subsidized by taxpayers.

Also, again, history will not only vindicate same-sex marriage, and same-sex relationships to be on a par with heterosexual relationships, but in the future people will look upon most of the institutional Church with increasing contempt, as it will be clearly seen that, just as most churches' antagonism toward the struggle for integration of African Americans during that civil rights struggle, they never learned from that sinful embarrassment and are again showing themselves to be embracing the rhetoric of the radical right wing in secular society.

As but just one example:

A group of local ministers filed papers Wednesday with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics requesting a voter referendum to overturn a city law recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

The action by the ministers is expected to set in motion a political fight that gay activists fear could rival the divisive referendum campaign in California that led to the narrow approval of Proposition 8, which overturned that state's same-sex marriage law.

Among those asking the election board to begin the process for putting the D.C. gay marriage equality law on the ballot were Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., and Rev. Walter Fauntroy, the city's former delegate to Congress.

"It's a declaration of war," the Washington Post quoted Jackson as saying. "We are sending a clear message this is going to be fought every step of the way."

[For the full article, see here.]

And when members of any minority group that has a history of having suffered grinding oppression then turn around and seek to oppress members of another minority group, that traitorous activity is nothing short of being despicable!

It seems to me that the only "perversion of marriage" that exists is the marriage between most of the institutionalized Church and its clergy and followers with some of the most reactionary forces within secular society! And that is a marriage made in hell!

Share |

OBAMA DECLARES JUNE 2009 BEING LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH

Part of Pres. Barack Obama's declaration of June 2009 being "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month" reads as follows:

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

[For the full article, see here.]

The words sound good, and that's what LGBT people and allies want to hear, but mere empty words are cynical at best and cruel at worst!

With a mere memo, Obama could do away with DADT right now!

"Equality" is meaningless unless there is true equality, which means marriage rights! Obama could now say he wants to do away with DOMA, but he's not going to do that because he's gone on record as being against marriage rights for Gay people.

"Marriage" rights are crucial, as with that recognition it is stated that same-sex love is equivalent to heterosexual love, and also virtually all other civil rights will likely follow that recognition.

As long as manufactured "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are used as seeming synonyms or substitutes for "marriage" of Gay couples, there will still be discrimination against same-sex couples and Gay people because their relationships will still be considered to be of a different, inferior, order than are heterosexual relationships.

So, I'm not all that excited by Obama's rhetoric unless he backs up that rhetoric by affirming full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, and he could institute those rights right now if he wanted to do so by merely doing away with DADT and by urging Congress to do away with DOMA. But it's my opinion that he really doesn't want to do so.

But it's a great photo op, and keeps the liberals in his camp, and that's all that seemingly really matters to him!

Share |

PLEASE WATCH THE DVD: CALL ME TROY

Especially at this time when increasing numbers of people are recognizing that dramatically increased meaningful grassroots and organizational activism for the acquisition of full and equal civil rights for LGBT people is absolutely necessary, I can't urge you enough to please watch the DVD, Call Me Troy, which is about both Rev. Troy Perry's life, the history of the Metropolitan Community Churches, and much of the evolution of the Gay rights movement.

The courage, the fire in the belly, evidenced byRev. Perry in calling attention to the fact that God doesn't have any step-children; that God loves all of His/Her gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender children; that God is a God of love and didn't create people whom He/She could sit around and hate, will help empower all who watch this DVD and, hopefully, stimulate each decent person, Gay and Straight, to fight for civil liberties for all.

Moreover, for those who are religious, this story shows that we have to put legs on our prayers and meaningfully confront those who would pervert God and God's message of love to the point where the civil rights that are enjoyed by heterosexuals are sinfully being denied to LGBT people.

For those who are Christians, we must recognize and see to it that we are agents of God's grace in this world, and we must never give up this fight against injustice until all citizens are treated equally; Gay people enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals currently enjoy.

The needed meaningful grassroots and organizational activism can and should take many forms, but all decent people must become activists of one type or another and see to it that we will not stand for the current injustice visited upon LGBT people that is a psychological, social, political, and religious plague!

Watching the DVD, Call Me Troy will be an inspiration to all decent people to do what they can to affirm that all people are created equal, and that LGBT people deserve, and must be accorded, the dignity, respect, and all the civil and sacramental rights that accrue to each and every heterosexual citizen.

The ministry and life of Troy Perry, who began the Metropolitan Community Church in 1968, a year before Stonewall, can and should continue to be a motivating force and catalyst for the much-needed next phase of the LGBT civil rights movement, where the notion of "Pride" transcends the mere celebration of emotional/sexual differences, but where "Pride" means the consistent demand that all LGBT people be accorded full and equal civil rights, including the right to marry, and that we will never give up that demand until all of those rights are finally won!

To Order the DVD, Call Me Troy Please Click on This Link.

Share |