Thursday, July 30, 2009


My good friend, Don Charles, has a two-part post entitled, The 2nd Dumb Dora Awards on his excellent blog, Christ, The Gay Martyr that I urge you to read.

Part of his post reads as follows, and clearly deserves your attention and wide distribution:

Barely had I cleared away the streamers and confetti from my first Dumb Dora Awards celebration than new nominees started presenting themselves. "No!" I cried. "It's too soon! Shouldn't there be at least six months between awards ceremonies?" I resisted, but it soon became apparent to me that ignorance follows its own timetable.

Over and over again, I was astonished by routine displays of arrested intelligence among Gay activists. I saw idiocy on parade; buffooneries by the dozen; lunacy galore! There were clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right, each new one more embarrassing than the one that came before. Believe me, darlings, I was simply spoiled for choice!

Yet somehow, I did manage to choose, narrowing down ten winners from scores of finalists. Now here we are again, gathered together to honor the dishonorable; my eyes glisten with tears as I watch my presenters line up behind the imbecile's podium, holding the dreaded tin jackass statuettes. These tokens of contempt will all be in the hands of deserving recipients when this evening is over. Conductor, cue the orchestra; stagehands, draw back the curtain! Let the 2nd Dumb Dora Awards begin!

Don Charles characteristically pulls no punches in naming names and dealing forthrightly with "activists" who, in one way or the other, have capitulated to the mind-set of the oppressor!

At a time when the struggle for civil rights must be ratcheted up, such betrayal of LGBT rights that Don Charles points out must be highlighted and condemned!

Please click on this link to read Don Charles' full two-part post, and please alert those on your mailing list to read it and widely distribute it as well.
Share |

Wednesday, July 29, 2009


Please read this statement by Rep. Alcee Hastings (Florida) regarding DADT.

Part of this statement reads as follows:

“I introduced an amendment to H.R. 3326, now withdrawn, prohibiting the use of funds in this bill to investigate or discharge our dedicated service men and women on the grounds of ‘telling’ their sexual orientation. The Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces – commonly called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – provides that a service member can be separated from the Armed Forces for stating that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual. Due to pressure from some of my Congressional colleagues and from the White House, I have withdrawn my amendment. I would, however, like to note that it is most unfortunate that we are not addressing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at this time. We should not be appropriating funds to enable qualified service members to be booted out just because they are honest about whom they are.

Anyone who still thinks that Obama cares about full equality for Gay people, or even cares about removing DADT, is sorely mistaken. Too much of his duplicity in this matter has been revealed to have us believe that he can be trusted.

It would behoove those participating in the March on Washington, scheduled for October 11th, and those who participate in Pride Parades, to focus on both Obama's unfulfilled promises and empty rhetoric, as well as demand full and equal rights befitting any and all citizens in the United States.

It is inconceivable that votes must be taken by Congress and by the electorate to determine what civil rights to which LGBT people are entitled and to which they are not entitled in our country where all citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law as stated in our Constitution. Obama has the Bully Pulpit in this matter, and he refuses to use it, which seems to me that he doesn't give a damn about equal rights for Gay people.

In this connection, further redundant discussions regarding DADT are due to occur. Here is Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (New York) talking about the politically expedient strategy that is felt to be needed in order to rescind DADT:

Share |

Monday, July 27, 2009


I think Obama is an angry man who seeks to be a people pleaser as well as being politically correct that goes along with being a people pleaser. These two characteristics are in conflict within him: being a people pleaser and politically correct that are in conflict with his deep seated anger, resulting in his masochistic self-sabotage.

Hence, the winning smile on the one hand and inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation on the other hand. He perversely knew on some level that there were other less controversial people he could have chosen to give the invocation, but he chose Warren at a time when he told Gay people that he was for their equality.

I think deep down he's a masochist who is manifesting that anger both toward himself and toward others who could be his allies. So, he sabotages Gay people with DADT and his Justice Department's legal brief on DOMA; he gets flack for what Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached so he dissociates himself from his friend and mentor of 20 years; he says he wants to remove troops from Iraq, and not only doesn't he do that but increases troop strength in Afghanistan in a war that we can't possibly win; he talks about "change" and continues to bankrupt this country, assuring rampant inflation, devaluation of the Dollar, risking the Dollar not being reserve currency anymore, etc.

He's one angry man, and that anger is manifested both internally and externally, and will eventually destroy him and his presidency, as well as do irreparable harm to this country.

Now, this anger manifests itself in his masochism by commenting on a situation about which he knows nothing, the Henry Louis Gates incident, which also sabotages himself.

Self-sabotage seems to be part of his life-script, and is, unfortunately, affecting virtually every American, particularly those who placed their hopes in him and in his empty rhetoric.
Share |

Friday, July 24, 2009


...the fact is, millions of women use and enjoy "explicit sexual imagery."

What's perhaps more surprising, given the latest scientific research, is that more of us don't.

In the first three months of 2007, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, approximately one in three visitors to adult entertainment Web sites was female; during the same period, nearly 13 million American women were checking out porn online at least once each month.

Theresa Flynt, vice president of marketing for Hustler video, says that women account for 56 percent of business at her company's video stores. "And the female audience is increasing," she adds. "Women are buying more porn." (They're creating more of it, too: Female director Candida Royalle's hard-core erotic videos, made expressly for women viewers, sell at the rate of approximately 10,000 copies a month.)

Meanwhile, science is finally buying into the idea that women are at least as stimulated by porn as men.

In a 2006 study at McGill University, researchers monitored genital temperature changes to measure sexual arousal and found that, when shown porn clips, men and women alike began displaying arousal within 30 seconds; men reached maximum arousal in about 11 minutes, women in about 12 (a statistically negligible difference, according to the study).

Even more compelling were the results of a 2004 study at Northwestern University that also assessed the effect of porn on genital arousal. Mind you, a copy of "Buffy the Vampire Layer" and a lubed-up feedback device isn't most girls' idea of a hot night in. But when the researchers showed gay, lesbian, and straight porn to heterosexual and homosexual women and men, they found that while the men responded more intensely to porn that mirrored their particular gender orientation, the women tended to like it all. Or at least their bodies did.

[For the full article, see here.]

It might seem strange to some of you that a Christian would be writing anything about porn, save to blindly and blankly condemn its existence.

Actually, porn can serve very vital functions! (I remember reading many years ago that the definition of a pornographic book is a book that you read with one hand.) Indeed, as this article points out, many women also enjoy porn which was hitherto blindly thought by many to be largely within the province of men to enjoy.

Porn can give one new ideas regarding sexual expression with one's partner; it can stimulate a couple to engage in sexual activity during or after watching it; it can be sexually pleasurable by the mere watching of it for pleasure's sake; it can help defuse one's pent up sexual energy with or without culminating in orgasm.

Interestingly, there is one significant aspect of most porn that this cited article ceases to point out: in most porn flicks sex is seen as a largely mechanical enterprise devoid of emotional feeling, attachment, or commitment to another person!

This separation of "sex" from "emotional attachment or commitment" in most pornography is a fact that can be very instructive.

That is not to say that porn is necessarily "bad" or "dangerous," but it is to say that most porn as currently exists must be seen as being restricted to sexuality in and of itself, rather than it usually including emotional attachment or commitment.

As with Straight people, many Gay people separate sexuality from emotional attachment or commitment, as does most porn. Yet, what makes us "Gay" or "Straight" is not restricted to our "sexual preference" as those labels encompass our "emotional preference" as well.

And it's that combination of sexual preference or orientation with our emotional preference or orientation that determines what box we choose (and others choose) to place us.

There is such a phenomenon as sexual attraction without emotional attraction, and vice versa, and it is this very discordance that helps make sexuality such a complex matter.

Most homophobes seem to define "Gay" in merely sexual terms, whereas "Gay" like "Straight" must be seen in the combination of emotional and sexual components in one's very being.

Unfortunately, some Straight and Gay people identify themselves as "Straight" or "Gay" because of their sexual preference or orientation, even if that preference or orientation is not in line with their emotional preference or orientation. Hence, some people (And I'm not referring to Bisexuals, who can emotionally and sexually relate to both sexes.) who identify themselves as "Straight" or "Gay" may questionably do so because of the former orientation even if they lack the latter orientation.

Hence, some of the complexity of sexuality, and the difficulty, if not downright error, of placing people in nice, neat boxes or categories, when the realities of sexuality are so much more multifaceted and complex.

It is largely because of this complexity that some self-identified "Straight" people occasionally seek out furtive sexual activity with people of their own sex; some "Gay" people occasionally seek out sexual activity with people of the opposite sex, sometimes to the point of them even marrying a member of the opposite sex. (This latter phenomenon is, of course, largely aided and abetted by the culture's emphasis on heteronormativity.)

Also, the above cited article is suggestive that some self-identified Straight people (most likely women) may occasionally have same-sex sexual fantasies to stimulate them into having sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex to whom they have an emotional attraction; some self-identified Gay people (most likely women) may occasionally have opposite-sex sexual fantasies when engaging in sexual relations with a person of the same sex to whom they have an emotional attraction.

This phenomenon may well also affect some men and, therefore, given these complexities, a Ted Haggard or a Larry Craig can and may honestly feel that he is "Straight" when he engages in same-sex relations; many self-identified Straight people can be rabidly homophobic because there is a part of them that is "Gay" and they unconsciously and/or consciously repress and/or suppress that part of themselves by verbally and/or even physically attacking Gay people in order to relieve their own sexual insecurities and anxieties.

It may be that the nature of pornography can be seen to stimulate a great field for analysis of some of the complexities of sexuality, and that the nice, neat boxes in which we seek to place ourselves and others are in many cases designed to make us feel more comfortable, but may well be useless, if not downright dangerous, constructs.

And much homophobia can be attributed to both the complexity of sexuality, to the need for social acceptance, and to the futile quest for certainty in life by those who can't tolerate ambiguity in life and in their own psyches.
Share |

Wednesday, July 22, 2009


This is a provocative article that I urge you to read.

It begins as follows:

Grandchildren are prone to think of the lives of their grandparents as ancient history, a collection of sentimental anecdotes of no use in deciding what slogan to put on your tee-shirt. But history is history, it's our history, and before we argue about the way things should be it's wise to understand the way things were and how we got to where we are now. After watching elected representatives of Alabama and South Carolina badger an Hispanic woman who has more gumption, class, and intelligence in one of her little fingers than they have in their whole heads, I started thinking about Harvey Cushing, the great neurosurgeon at Harvard who did so much to poison us with his bigotry and racism, it's a wonder we're still here.

My good friend, Don Charles, called this article to my attention, and I wrote him the following response in this slightly edited email:

The author states, "We have so much diversity in America, it can hardly be cataloged. And yet of all advanced countries in the world, we excel in tribal hatreds that apparently seep everywhere in the American psyche."

"Tribal hatreds" seeped into the American psyche largely because of perverted "Christianity," and unbridled capitalism that is extolled as a virtue by Social Darwinism (Survival of the fittest.) that has taken root in this country and in almost every American's psyche!

When we have professing Christians arguing against universal health care; clergy preaching hate and discrimination against LGBT people; capitalists who profit from socialism when it suits their greedy interests, yet condemn socialism when there is an attempt to use it to help the poor (As we see in reference to universal health care.), we can see that the rot within America, and the typical American's psyche, is less "personal" than it is "structural," aided and abetted by many clergy and by politicians who are in the pockets of those capitalists, and rely on them to keep their careers and that money rolling in.

The power structure has a vested interest in having people think in "personal" rather than in "structural" terms! So, for example, we are told that voting is essential to having a democracy, rather than highlighting, questioning, and changing the very nature of the existing political process in America where we now have a series of pathetic choices from which to select, so that many of us choose who we consider to be the lesser of two evils, rather than confidently choosing someone of whom we can be justifiably proud and who we feel can best fulfill the high office for which he or she is seeking election.

Moreover, many clergy and other professing Christians have also internalized the perceived virtue of Social Darwinism to the degree that they have aligned themselves with reactionary politics that are symmetrical with capitalist interests and, therefore, they see no inconsistency between the Gospel of Christ and their extolling as virtues: Americanism, jingoism, capitalism, and militarism.

This perversion of Christianity has enabled them to feel no guilt when they demonize others and when they advocate principles and actions that are explicitly contrary to Jesus' teachings!

Whether or not "we excel in tribal hatreds" compared with the rest of the world, I do not know. When we see such institutional and personal hatreds toward LGBT people, or even those perceived to be LGBT, in Jamaica, it is hard to quantify evil and fathom the roots of such evil, regardless of where it exists.

However, we can see that in both the United States as in Jamaica, perverted Christianity is seen as a root cause, if not the major root cause, of this evil and its perpetuation!

The following excerpt, although directed to Jamaica, could just as easily be attributed to religious conditions in most of the institutionalized Church in the United States:

Many in this highly Christian nation perceive homosexuality as a sin, and insist violence against gays is blown out of proportion by gay activists. Some say Jamaica tolerates homosexuality as long as it is not advertised - a tropical version of former President Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the U.S. military.

Jamaica's most prominent evangelical pastor, Bishop Herro Blair, said he sympathizes with those who face intolerance, but that homosexuals themselves are actually behind most of the attacks reported against them.

"Among themselves, homosexuals are extremely jealous," said Blair during a recent interview. "But some of them do cause a reaction by their own behaviors, for, in many people's opinions, homosexuality is distasteful."

Other church leaders have accused gays of flaunting their behavior to "recruit" youngsters, or called for them to undergo "redemptive work" to break free of their sexual orientation.

[For the full article, see here.]

Sound familiar?

Christians who are Christians in fact must stand up and confront the perversion of Christianity visited upon the larger society by ignorant and/or mendacious clergy and their followers, resulting in (among other things) the sinful treatment of LGBT people; bearing false witness against them; defaming them; denying them full and equal civil rights; providing phony "religious" justifications for consigning them to pariah status within any society by downright lies and biblical distortions!

Failure to do so has been, and continues to be, a tragic indictment of the state of most of the institutional Church and its representatives and functionaries!

Jesus has His own indictment of the professing Christian legalists who seek to place yokes of bondage onto others, those who would in any way harm, or in any way be complicit in doing harm, to any of His children, be they Gay or Straight:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity…. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:27-28,33)
Share |

Monday, July 20, 2009


Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.

[For the full article, see here.]

This is an excellent article by David Boies who, along with Ted Olson, has filed suit on behalf of all Gay couples who seek and deserve full and equal civil rights. Here, he is arguing about the mandate of equal protection and due process for Gay people, asking the federal courts to strike down the nefarious Prop. 8 that prohibits marriage between same-sex couples who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other.

In this same article that I hope you read in its entirety, Boies writes:

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Anyone who feels that same-sex love is inconsistent with Christianity clearly doesn't understand the Gospel of Jesus!

The institution of marriage has taken many forms throughout human history, and it is a sin to discriminate against anybody and/or to deprive Gay couples and their children of the basic civil rights and benefits that accrue to citizenship in society.

Since when did Jesus condone discrimination? Since when did Jesus condone prejudicial, discriminatory, and downright hateful rhetoric from those who claim to represent Him? Since when did Jesus condone His disciples' alliance with the most reactionary forces of the State to consign LGBT people, or anyone else for that matter, to second class and pariah status in society?

And since when did Jesus ever condemn His Gay children? As recorded in Matthew 19:12:

"For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb...Let him who is able to receive it, receive it."

All too many professing Christians refuse to receive this message from our Lord!

As Faris Malik has written, regarding men:

The willingness to engage in homosexual activity (particularly intergenerationally) was widespread among men in the ancient Mediterranean region. Women and boys were considered equally tempting sex objects for those whom we would call heterosexual men. Therefore, homosexual activity could not have provided a means of distinguishing certain men as "gay" the way we do in the modern world. However, the ancients did differentiate based on an unwillingness or incapacity for heterosexual sex. Certain men were known to fundamentally lack arousal for sex with women, and men of this kind were distinguished from the majority of ordinary men on that basis. The innately and exclusively homosexual men of the ancient world inhabited the category of eunuchs. What we moderns think of as a eunuch, namely a castrated man, was simply an artificially manufactured homosexual....

Exclusively homosexual men, or eunuchs, to use the ancient term, were not considered "male," because maleness meant the aptitude to play the male role in procreative sex, which they lacked by definition.

Malik also states:

Think about it. Jesus spoke specifically about gay men in Matthew 19:12. He even said people might become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He did not anywhere say eunuchs should avoid their own kind of sexual expression. The church's condemnation of gay sexuality thus falls into the same category as its former hatred of straight sexuality, namely the category of irrelevance. In fact, you could even call it complicity in genocide, given the number of gay people who have been tortured and killed, either by the church or with its condonation. [Here.]

Clearly, the spiritual underpinnings of same-sex love, although very relevant to a true understanding of its biblical relevance, is irrelevant to the mandate of equal protection under the law and the fact that separate is not equal as are currently enshrined in our Constitution.

It is, therefore, unconstitutional, and a disgrace, to discriminate against Gay people!

And it is an even greater disgrace to reduce Jesus and the Gospel to a bumper sticker mentality that promotes discrimination against God's gay and lesbian children in their names!
Share |

Saturday, July 18, 2009


From the Washington Blade:

This is an excellent summary of federal court cases designed to rescind Prop 8, and DOMA in whole or in part.

In this connection, James Hipps of Gay Agenda has an excellent rebuttal to the hateful animus and intellectual bankruptcy of Rev. Harry Jackson and of others who profess themselves to be "Christian" regarding their seeming justifications for their homophobic position regarding same-sex marriage.

The following is a brief excerpt from James Hipps' article, which I urge you to read it in its entirety:

Now, let’s get down to facts…not your B.S. “religious” rhetoric!

You point out a few things including the declining marriage rate, the increased divorce rate, a rise in heterosexual cohabitation, and an increase in un-wed births.

How exactly is it that same-sex marriage is going to contribute to the increase of all these things? Same-sex marriage would actually increase the marriage rate, not affect the divorce rate and has NOTHING to do with heterosexual cohabitation or un-wed births.

I realize you site these examples because as in your words, “These statistics show the fragile nature of the institution of marriage today. Changing the definition of marriage will have many unintended consequences, which will hurt generations to come.”

I would ask again, let’s put aside your projected outcome, and let’s talk fact. How exactly does allowing marriage equality change the definition of marriage? Marriage is two consenting adults, entering into a “legally recognized” contract that makes them immediate family to one another. What unintended consequences will hurt anyone, or generations to come? What are you talking about? What facts do you base this proclamation on? Where are your statistics? Have you used Canada, Spain, South Africa or any other country that has ended marriage discrimination to back your claim? No…you have not…and your statements are rhetoric, false and come with nothing to substantiate your claims. Let me simplify this a bit. How would my marriage to another man affect your life, the divorce rate, or anyone else other than my spouse and me? The answer is easy. It wouldn’t.
Share |

Friday, July 17, 2009


The pain of inequality was felt by all people, and not only black Americans, [Obama] said: "By African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different colour and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights." [See here.]

Of course, it's this last sentence to which I'm referring. Obama is very bright, and he must know that one of the major reasons "our gay brothers and sisters [are] still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights" is because he is in a position to greatly change the homophobic atmosphere in this country, and both rescind DADT, publicly urge Congress to repeal DOMA, and come out in favor of same-sex marriage, none of which he has seen fit to do.

As he told "black America," “Your destiny is in your hands, and don’t you forget that. That’s what we have to teach all of our children! No excuses! No excuses!”

It seems he has neither the conscience nor the courage to take his own advice!
Share |

Thursday, July 16, 2009


For the most important thing to know about Bill Clinton is that the man never takes a position based upon considerations of things like morality or justice. He takes positions based entirely upon a cold calculation of what will advance his political (and, of late, business) interests. If, for whatever reason, his cynical support for marriage equality gets in the way of his wife’s political career or a shady business deal with an Arab oil sheik, Clinton will abandon the cause faster than he fled the 1992 campaign trail to carry out the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally retarded black prisoner who had shot himself in the head after committing a double homicide.

To provide the most succinct and accurate description of the Clintons, I defer to someone who knows them all too well and who also happens to be the richest and most powerful gay man in America: David Geffen.

Explaining his surprise support for Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary, the record producer told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, “Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

Geffen, who raised millions of dollars for the Clintons and twice slept in the Lincoln bedroom, came late to recognizing the mendaciousness of this couple.

Hopefully other gays will follow his lead. Better late than never.

[For the full article, see here.]

This article is worth reading in its entirety. Although I disagree with the author of the above article, James Kirchick, regarding Clinton's initiation of DADT, which was in actuality considered at the time to be the lesser of two evils, the alternative being the summary dismissal of all Gay military personnel, he's right on the money regarding all of his other assessments of Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton, using the label, "centrist" as a likely cover for his lack of any moral compass with which to navigate assorted political and even personal decisions he has made in his life, seems to be the role model that Obama is following in his decisions that affect LGBT people.

Obama's indolence regarding DADT, and his advocacy of discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to marry and also receive all of the many rights and benefits accorded heterosexual married couples, shows his disdain for this part of his constituency that he was able to seduce and energize into voting for him, despite his stated antipathy for same-sex marriage and his associations with the likes of the "ex-gay" Donnie McClurkin, and Rick Warren who was asked to give the prayer at his inauguration.

Perhaps it's not too late to come to terms with the fact that Obama can't be trusted to deliver on his promise to do away with DADT which, I reiterate, he could accomplish by the mere writing of a memo, unless he does so right before the next election if he feels that he'll get political mileage out of it by shoring up his "liberal" base.

Regarding DOMA, it's not at all likely to be repealed during his tenure as President. Indeed, his Department of Justice vigorously defended it.

Clearly, his antipathy toward same-sex marriage and his vigorous defense of DOMA which contradicts his electioneering rhetoric, puts the lie to his statements that he believes in equality and justice.

I can assure you that no matter who is running against him in 2012, I won't repeat the mistake I made last November by voting for him as the lesser of two evils.
Share |

Tuesday, July 14, 2009


The Episcopal Church moved Monday toward affirming their acceptance of gays and lesbians for all roles in ministry, despite pressure from fellow Anglicans worldwide for a decisive moratorium on consecrating another openly gay bishop.

Bishops at the Episcopal General Convention in Anaheim, Calif., voted 99-45 with two abstentions for a statement declaring "God has called and may call" to ministry gays in committed lifelong relationships.

Lay and priest delegates to the meeting had comfortably approved a nearly identical statement, and were expected to adopt the latest version before the meeting ends Friday....

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, had attended the Episcopal national meeting in Anaheim, Calif., in its opening days last week. He said, "I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that could push us further apart."

[For the full article, see here.]

This is good news, particularly since other mainline denominations in the United States are dealing with this issue and are more than likely to take their cues in this matter from the Episcopal Church.

Rowan Williams seems to think that "unity" at the expense of the "Gospel" is desirable! He's wrong!

When professing Christians seek unity amidst discrimination against others; institutionalize pariah status of some Christians; seek peace amidst injustice, they miss the point of the Gospel message that Christians are to be like soldiers who don't entangle themselves with worldly values, but seek to be agents of God's grace in this world, and seek to make this world, to use St. Augustine's phrase, "a colony of heaven."

And any member of the clergy, or any professing Christian for that matter, who seeks to keep a massive bureaucracy together, and keep it growing, and keep it unified at the expense of others, betrays the Gospel and God Whom they purport to represent to the world!
Share |

Monday, July 13, 2009


A "kiss-in" drew about 60 people sporting pink paper hearts to the sidewalk just off of LDS Church property near Temple Square [in Utah] on Sunday to protest actions taken by the church's security personnel late last week.

Dozens of gay and straight couples smooched, posed for photos and talked with reporters while church security issued a few reminders to stay on the sidewalks.

But, as the gathering was beginning to disperse, about 35 protesters crossed onto church property and walked around the reflecting pond, eliciting a call to police by church representatives.

[For the full article, see here.]

Two men who kissed at one of five Chico's Tacos restaurants in El Paso, Tex., were kicked out by guards—and local law enforcement supported the ejection, citing non-existent laws regarding homosexual conduct in public.

The men and three friends were asked to leave after the kiss when security personnel told them they didn't allow "all that faggot stuff" in the establishment....

[For the full article, see here.]

It's hard to understand why two people kissing is considered onerous to others! The "ick factor" regarding same-sex love that is held by so many people is largely due to the insistent and continuous ranting of assorted religious self-appointed arbiters of "morality," so that many people blindly attribute "immorality" to the expression of same-sex love, even if it's only a simple kiss and/or hand-holding.

The "ick factor" will only dissipate when full and equal civil rights are won, and when same-sex love is normalized within society.

Attitude follows behavior: that is, we don't change our behavior because our attitudes change but, rather, we change our attitudes when our behavior changes or is forced to be changed!

Pride Parades would be ideal venues for insisting on equal rights that are enjoyed by all heterosexual citizens; become venues for education of people as to the lies and distortions that are borne of hateful ignorance by so many "Christian" clergy and their followers.

There must be a switch of the focus of Pride Parades from "celebrating" to "demanding!"

In the 1960's and 1970's, celebrating one's affirmation of self and the creation of an e sprit de corp among people in the Gay communities was desirable and appropriate. However, it seems to me that the need for such celebration has now come to an end, and Pride Parades must be used to "educate" and "demand!"

The National Equality March to be held on October 11, 2009, will hopefully help begin, if not further, a pattern of helping to set the stage for both educating the public about the lies and distortions promulgated by religious and other homophobes regarding LGBT people, and also for demanding full and equal civil rights.

This phenomenon of attitude change following behavior change, borne of "education" and "demanding" full and equal civil rights, was seen in the African American civil rights movement, and will also be seen once the LGBT civil rights movement gains more traction and finally prevails!
Share |

Friday, July 10, 2009


The group that filed a federal Proposition 8 lawsuit is pushing back against LGBT organizations seeking to intervene in the case — much to the consternation of officials who say they're bringing needed voices and expertise to the table.

Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and American Civil Liberties Union, earlier this week sought to intervene in the American Foundation for Equal Rights suit against Prop 8.

But in a letter dated Wednesday, AFER [American Foundation for Equal Rights] board president Chad Griffin [Chad Griffin was one of Advocate mag's "People of the Year" in 2008; Griffin was also executive producer on Kirby Dick's documentary, "Outrage."] urges the groups not to intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and accuses them of having previously worked to undercut the litigation.

"You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed," Griffin writes. "In light of this, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene."

[For the full article, see here.]

In part, Griffin wrote to the three organizations:

“Your intervention,” he wrote in an eleventh-hour letter attempting to stop the groups from filing their motion on Wednesday afternoon, “would create a complex, multi-party proceeding that would inevitably be hampered by procedural inefficiencies that are directly at odds with our goal -- and the goal of Chief Judge Walker -- of securing an expeditious, efficient, and inexpensive resolution to the district court proceedings.

“As a result of your intervention, we could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years -- while gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing. Such potentially interminable delay is antithetical to the values on which your organization was founded and for which you and your supporters have fought so tirelessly.”

[For the full article, see here.]

As I wrote to a friend of mine in slightly edited form:

It's very difficult to determine not only the best way to proceed, but the very truth of the matter: namely, the motivation for the suit in the first place. From the very beginning I was worried as to why Theodore Olson, who was on the Board of Directors of The American Spectator, a conservative publication, and attended the first meeting of The Federalist Society, whose purpose is, "To promote the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be," all of a sudden be interested in same-sex marriage rights.

I'm disturbed by the apparent opportunism of the LGBT rights organizations who are seeking to jump on this bandwagon; I'm equally disturbed by the specter of there possibly being an end run around same-sex marriage rights by the suit in the first place, with the intent to doom it to failure by both Olson and even David Boies.

If two progressives with a track record affirming equal rights were pursuing the suit, I'd be more strongly in favor of it. As it is, I'm truly ambivalent about its timing. Such a suit needs to be prosecuted, but the question as to who is prosecuting it and its timing is cause for some concern.

Moreover, with the current and foreseeable future composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm not sanguine that we can win in that arena, and that could possibly be the motivation behind the suit and its timing.

Regarding Boies, while in College of the Redlands he was President of the Young Republicans club. People, of course, can change, but this fact shouldn't go unnoticed.

Larry Kramer, for whom I have a great deal of respect, had the following to say about this issue:

"I implore your three organizations... to not interfere with the Olson/Boies case".... "You will only botch up what they are trying to achieve. You have thus far not achieved it on your own and with your own tactics, so why are you trying to kybosh someone who has come along with fresh new energy, ideas, and clout? You are only behaving in the worst possible bitchy way, the way gay groups can fall victim to when their feelings are hurt. Keep your noses out of it, will you please? I beg of you."
[See here.]

The three organizations might well be spoilers that seek to jump on this bandwagon in order to be better able to gain needed credibility as well as be in a better position to solicit contributions and, hence, gain revenue from their constituents; it's also not inconceivable that Olson and Boies might well be spoilers who are placing same-sex marriage on the fast track knowing full well that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court might very well find against them.

Or, things might well be as they appear: Olson and Boies might well be offended at the denial of equal marriage rights for Gay people, and the three LGBT rights organizations might well want to add their collective expertise in prosecuting this case along with the original attorneys who don't have the expertise in dealing with LGBT rights that the attorneys for the three organizations possess.

Frankly, although I hope the second scenario is the correct one, I'm truly ambivalent about this turn of events, save to say that equal rights is a constitutional issue that must be solely within the purview of the Judiciary, and tyranny of the majority at the ballot box has no place in determining the civil rights of any minority group, as we saw with the Prop 8 debacle in California, and its equally unconstitutional cousin in Maine.

If the original attorneys prosecuting this case were long-standing LGBT civil rights attorneys, I'd feel much better about this whole issue and its timing. However, since Olson and Boies began this process, I see no reason why these three organizations can't be consultants to them, and not be even perceived to be in the position of being mere hustlers and spoilers!
Share |

Wednesday, July 8, 2009


Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to challenge the federal law....

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

[For the full article, see here.]

This federal suit might well decide how long DOMA remains in effect; by extension, determine whether or not federal recognition of same-sex marriage becomes a reality within the very foreseeable future.
Share |

Tuesday, July 7, 2009


Talking with the Roman Catholic press as he looks forward to having an audience with the Pope on July 10th, Obama had the following to say regarding LGBT rights:

Obama said he's struggling to reconcile his religious faith with his acceptance of gays and lesbians:

"For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they're often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally. And as a Christian, I'm constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians."

[For the full article, see here.]

Notice, in referring to "the gay and lesbian community in this country" Obama says: "I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways...." They feel? Why not come right out and say, "They are victimized in fairly powerful ways...."?

Also, regarding his perception of what it means to be a Christian, just like George Bush, he seems to think that the United States is a Theocracy where one's religious view shapes, or is to be a major force in shaping, who gets civil rights and who is to be treated equally.

Indeed, his perception of "Christianity," causes him to "constantly [wrestle] with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians."

Forget the solicitude and concern, Obama! Let's face the fact that in regard to LGBT issues there's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Bush, except that the latter was more honest about his prejudice!
Share |

Monday, July 6, 2009


The nation's top military officer said Sunday he has advised President Barack Obama to move "in a measured way" in changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military....

"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said.

[For the full article, see here.]

Who is dictating policy here: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Barack Obama, President of the United States?

The President is supposed to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed services, and as such it is up to him to dictate military policy on such issues as DADT. Obama is the supreme commander of all the armed forces of the United States and, as such, Mullen is to do what Obama says; Obama is not to follow Mullen's directives, especially when Mullen admits, "I haven't done any kind of extensive review."

It is not up to Mullen, or any other military official for that matter, to articulate policy for public consumption, and by the public nature of Mullen's statement it indicates to me one or two of both possibilities: 1. Obama has ceded influence and decision making regarding DADT (and other matters) to the military and to Congress, thereby thinking he can wash his hands of the revulsion that is bound to ensue when DADT is not rescinded, and still keep his base for his re-election; 2. Mullen, and perhaps other military leaders, don't respect Obama enough to defer to him to be the first to present military policy statements that are designed for public consumption.

On May 21st, David Broder, although coming from a different point of view, had this to say about Obama:

The most controversial decisions of this period -- expanding the troop commitment and replacing the commander in Afghanistan, opposing the release of photos of abused detainees, keeping the system of military tribunals and delaying any change in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays -- are of a pattern.

In every instance, Obama heeded the advice of his uniformed and civilian defense leaders and in each case but Afghanistan, he abandoned a position he had taken as the Democratic presidential candidate....

He picked a vice president, Joe Biden, who visited the battlefronts repeatedly as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; a secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who immersed herself in defense issues as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and a defense secretary, Bob Gates, who ran the wars for Bush. Then, most strikingly, as his national security adviser he chose not another of the academics who have customarily filled that role but a very tough retired Marine general, James L. Jones.

They are the ones whose advice and counsel Obama has heeded in recent weeks -- not the political aides who guided him through the campaign and into the White House.

[For the full article, see here.]

Given Obama's lack of experience, he chose to defer to others when it comes to military matters, and given his indolence in rescinding DADT (which is in his power to do), and given his Justice Department's attacking DOMA in federal court, even linking same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia in its brief, I can't see how DADT will be repealed in the foreseeable future. Moreover, DOMA is likely to be with us for a very, very long time.

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog received an email from Richard Socarides that reads as follows:

Mullen's comments are offensive and insulting. It's shocking that the civilian leadership allows him to talk about a group of Americans as if we were second class citizens.

How can you advocate a measured approach to equality? Deliberate is what I'm looking for. Deliberate is what we were promised.

And his comments about "the impact [of a policy change] on our people and their families" is outrageous. What about the impact of the current policy on gay servicemenbers? Are they not "his people." Not to mention the chilling effect official, government sanctioned discrimination has on all of us as Americans.

This is one of the most senior leaders of our government talking about us as if we were second class citizens. It has got to stop.

Sixteen years ago Sam Nunn and Colin Powell did this to us and no one called them on it. And we ended up with this policy. Now we must speak up. These are not legitimate opposing views. He, Mullen, is not expressing an American view of equality. And, shockingly, one of his main jobs is to articulate the policy views of his boss, the president.
[See here.]

Despite his campaign promises and his meaningless rhetoric about equal rights, I never felt that Obama was ever interested in equal rights for LGBT people, and this latest story on that issue merely reaffirms my contention!

Many progressives and LGBT activists have still failed to grasp that Obama is a traitor who never had any desire to move the cause of civil rights for LGBT people forward, and merely used those communities to garner money and votes. Now that he has those votes, only his empty rhetoric exists.
Share |

Saturday, July 4, 2009


For this Fourth of July weekend, I'd like to have you listen to this two part video where Rev. Troy Perry, Founder and 37 year Moderator of the Metropolitan Community Churches, gives a sermon from which all of us can profit. It's entitled, "Going First Class."

Many LGBT people view themselves as second class citizens because of their internalizing often hateful "religious" rhetoric to which they have been exposed, and also because that is the way they are treated. Therefore, all too many LGBT people are rather quick to embrace rather meaningless political rhetoric and settle for what crumbs of incrementalism are doled out to them by politicians.

It's high time that all of us decide that no one is to settle for anything other than full and equal civil rights because God creates LGBT people just as God creates Straight people! And God doesn't make any mistakes!

This two part video is instructive in not only the message that is conveyed by Rev. Perry, but by your seeing a truly courageous man of God speak from his heart.

Part 1.

Part 2.
Share |

Thursday, July 2, 2009


I have long been a fan of Sister Paula who has been a long-time LGBT activist. She is a Christian and has been out as a transgender woman since the 1960's.

Without a doubt, she has had a fruitful ministry showing the freedom ALL people can have in Christ, and her intelligence and verve make her an inspiring and delightful person from whom to learn and receive a blessing.

Please click on this link to access the June 26th podcast and hear a truly liberating message from Sister Paula.

If you'd like to see a brief video of Sister Paula talking with Rev. Troy Perry, who founded the Metropolitan Community Churches in 1968 that have a ministry to everybody, especially to LGBT people, please see the video below:

I guarantee you'll be blessed by watching both videos!

Here are her Youtube videos some or all of which you might be interested in seeing as well.
Share |

Wednesday, July 1, 2009


The Obamas hosted a reception for LGBT Pride Month at the White House on June 29th, and the following is the video of Obama's speech to those who attended:

Many years ago, I gave a speech to a church, the topic of which I have long forgotten. However, my family was with me and after my speech an older lady came up to me and said, "Those were very nice words."

After she left, my youngest daughter who was about eleven years old at the time, said to me: "That's all it meant to her, Daddy. Very nice words."

That's what I feel about Obama's talk: "Very nice words." But words, in and of themselves, are completely meaningless, if not cynical unless they are backed up by actions that are consistent with those words!

I'm a behaviorist, in that I care less for words than I do for whether or not those words resonate with the actions one takes that either affirm or deny those words. So far, Obama's actions have denied those very words that he spoke!

Michael Rowe's article in yesterday's post beautifully summarizes the egregious actions, and egregious inaction, Obama has taken so far in his presidency, and they don't jibe with many of the words he spoke in his speech, words that were seemingly lapped up by those in attendance.
Share |