24. December 2010 by admin.

And so, with the flourish of a pen, the President eliminated one of the major barriers to equality for gay men and women: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  It’s funny to hear how the right wing fanatics are beating the airwaves with claims that the military will collapse, that we’ll have to reinstitute the draft and that this decision will destroy our ability to rule the world..er..maintain our safety in these troubled times.  Please.  First, by saying these things, you make the United States sound like a weak nation.  How is it that other countries can integrate their militaries but the United States cannot?  I mean, if the British can do it why can’t its former colony?  Are we less than them?  That’s what they will have you believe.

And then there are the claims that suddenly, because they now can come out, gays will be showering with their straight counterparts in the military and sexually assaulting them.  Since there have been gays in the military since there has been a military, I seriously doubt anything will change.  In fact, it may help to alleviate the sexuasl issues that have plagued the military of late, perpetrated, I might add, by straight men against straight women.  The assault cases against cadets in the Air Force academy were not gay.  In fact, if you look at the statistics, gay men and women tend not to be the problem, straight men are the problem.  I don’t hear any call for “outlawing” them.  Ah well.

And then there are the concerns that this is just the first step toward giving gays and lesbians full equality!  Oh, the horror of it!  Soon we’ll have gay marriage and then you’ll be able to marry animals and children will have to grow up knowing there are gay people in the world.  Um…ok.  Why are these people so concerned with me?  Don’t they have their own lives to live?  Don’t they have their own marriages to destroy?  I mean, if marriage is such a sacred institution, then why is divorce allowed?  And why do 50% of marriages fail?  I would suggest that if these people are so afraid of the lives that others live that they begin with their own lives first.  He who is without sin, first stone, ect.  When your house is in order, then you can come and check out mine.  You’ll find it’s cleaner, more organized, and fabulously stylish.  Please!

So, here’s my proposed timeline:  In 2011 we will see the fall of Proposition 8 in California.  Civil Unions will begin the erosion of discrimination against gay marriage which will culminate in the codification of civil marriage sometime in 2013 or so, allowing religious marriage to supplement, but not control, the institution of marriage.  Sounds like a dream but then, the repeal of DADT was once thought to be a fantasy as well.  Here’s to our dreams coming true in our lifetimes!

Posted in Leadership, Gay, Your Rights, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

6. October 2010 by admin.

I have been struggling lately with my response to the recent spate of suicides by gay teens and children. How do you approach a group of children who don’t have any other view of the world? I know that I have lived a charmed life, and that my experiences do not mirror those of most people. But to see these children giving themselves up fear and frustration is unacceptable.I remember how I felt after my first experience with another man. The euphoria and exhilaration were incredible.  As I walked back to my dorm room, I remember feeling as though I was on cloud nine. I can only imagine the utter desolation experienced by Tyler Clementi when he discovered that his moment of passion had been broadcast on the Internet.I cannot understand how people can think it’s all right to ridicule and humiliate people just for being themselves.

The wonderful initiative by writer and columnist Dan Savage, It Will Get Better, is an exceptional example of how people can come together to help teens and children in need find the resources to learn about what life is about.The bullying that goes on schools, the torment that some children have to go through a regular basis, makes me sick. It is never all right to tease or bully or torment someone simply because they are different. We need to teach our children that it is not right to disparage others.

I have to think that at least part of the reason this seems normal to us is the tone that is taken in political advertisements. We seem to accept negative advertising as the standard in politics these days. I find it amazing that we are willing to accept a politician based not on their philosophy and voting record but on the fact that their opponent is someone we would not want in office. The way I look at it, if you cannot tell me what you believe in and how you would vote if you are elected, and instead turn to bashing your opponent, then you do not deserve my vote. I just wish that most of the electorate would think that way as well.  So if it is acceptable in politics, why would it not be acceptable in life?

We are supposed to be the adults. What kind of sad example are we setting for the children? It’s about time we took responsibility for setting that example. If by being out and proud I can provide some example to kids who are trying to figure out who they are, then I will consider myself to be a success.If you are a parent, then it is your responsibility to help your child find their way into themselves. Help them find the resources they need to be comfortable with who they are. And if I can do any good with that please let me know how.

Posted in Personal, Gay | No Comments »

16. December 2008 by admin.

With Proposition 8 succeeding in the polls and the majority imposing their will on the minority (not exactly the founding principle of this nation) it’s time to really look at the issue from a rational and considered viewpoint.  Or mine, in this case.

First, marriage is not a religious creation, it is a social convention that was created to define relationships between families.  While the modern view in the US relies heavily on religious overtones, it is not the only way to see it.  Consider that there are three forms of “marriage.”  The first is actually a legal and social form which is really the version that most same sex couples want.  It does not require religion in any form.  All we need is a couple of signatures on a piece of paper and the government recognizes that two individuals have entered into a relationship.  This is where those rights and responsibilities accrue that form the basis for the desire of same sex couples to marry.  We want those 1000 rights that we would have if we were allowed to marry.  The tax benefits, inheritance, medical decisions, parenting rights, and everything else.

Then comes the second form: religious marriage.  The problem for most people is that they ignore the civil elements of marriage and concentrate solely on the religious elements.  Well, you don’t have to be religious to marry.  In many countries, the only marriage that counts is the civil one.  Here in the US we have given way to the idea that a religious ceremony counts just like the civil one and, in fact, trumps it.  But marriage is not something that requires religion, otherwise it should be denied to athiests and agnostics and those who have left the church.  No, just like divorce is a civil action (frowned upon by many religions) the marriage that preceeded it should also be nothing more than a civil event.

The fact is that when the religious folks spout off about marriage being a sacrament and should be limited to one man and one woman, they are referring only to those ceremonies practiced under their religion.  In fact, there are a number of religions that DO recognize same sex marriage and even celebrate these ceremonies.  So, same sex marriage can even be religious in nature.  The problem is that those specific religions where it is not allowed are forcing their beliefs on the rest of society and not allowing for any other kind of marriage.

This is where I get to have fun with the Christian crowd because they are the ones pushing the one man-one woman marriage deal.  You see, marriage is not the June and Ward Cleaver relationship that many people think it “should” be.  It is something that was created centuries ago and has changed throughout history.  It is not this immutable sacrament that came down from God.  No, the Catholilc church co-opted marriage (as it has so many things) by making it a requirement for recognition of any relationship.  When the church’s power grew, marriage under the steeple became a requirement, not the option it used to be.

And let’s talk about marriage.  The bible has men marrying their sisters, polygamy was the norm and the woman was subjugated in the relationship.  Why did women change their last names when marrying their husbands?  To denote the change in ownership from their father to their husband.  Some faiths refuse to recognize marriage outside their sects and until just recently (in historical terms) mixed marriages were not allowed.  This furthers my contention that marriage is a social convention that just happens to have a religious element to it.  Remember dowries?  Those were bribes from those families unfortunate enough to have female children to the families of the fortunate ones with male children to try and get rid of the girl.  Is this the ideal of marriage those religious proponents are trying to “savor?”

They claim that same sex marriage “destroys” the institution.  No, infidelity, divorce, and abuse destroy the institution of marriage.  And you can’t tell me that the clergy don’t look the other way when important people want to get rid of a spouse.  The number of “annulments”  given out by the church don’t entirely coincide with the concept of one man-one woman forever.  I would suggest that because divorce is civil (you know what I mean) then marriage should be civil as well.  That would alleviate the fear that the clergy have of being “forced” to marry same sex couples in their churches.  Now why would we want to go into a place that doesn’t welcome us?  Especially on that day!??

So, there it is.  Take religion out of marriage and grant everyone the same civil rights under marriage.  Allow the religions to marry as they see fit (including those who allow same sex marriages) but don’t grant any civil rights as a result to ensure that everyone is treated equally.  And let me marry the man I want to spend the rest of my life with so we can be just as happy and miserable as every other heterosexual couple out there, as our relationship becomes.

Posted in Gay, Religion, Politics | No Comments »

11. April 2008 by admin.

It just gets better and better. Ms. Kern is not only a coward and a hypocrite, she is an out-and-out liar as well.

Apparently she met with the fine folks from PFLAG and during the course of their talks, Ms. Kern stated that she agreed with the idea that gay men and women should not be fired from their jobs because they are gay. (We are worse than terrorists but shouldn’t be fired because of it?) She said this twice in the conversation. But when she went back out into public, she denied ever saying anything of the kind! She claimed that PFLAG had “misrepresented” her comments.

In a delicious twist or irony, her perjury came to light quickly when PFLAG released the recordings of the conversation they had with her (and which was recorded with the consent of her staff!) where you can hear Ms. Kern say, in her own words, that she believes gays should not be fired from their jobs. Oy! So what we have here is not a failure to communicate but an appalling lack of brains from an individual who 1) cannot think for herself and therefore mimics words she hears in her church and 2) tailors her conversation to the audience even when it means she says two things that are complete opposites. So, does that make her a liar, or just a very good politician? Well, neither. A good politician wouldn’t be caught lying.

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

21. March 2008 by admin.

Everyone should have heard of Sally Kern by now.  She’s that republican lawmaker from Oklahoma who was caught on tape comparing homosexuality to terrorism and saying that we are more of a threat to America than Al-Quaeda.  Uh huh.  Well, I was going to stay out of the fray considering that so many more eloquent people have spoken and written about this incident.  But then she goes and does something that gets to the very core of what I despise about people these days.

Ellen DeGeneres called her up to talk to her about her views and she refused to open the conversation.  Why?  She said she doesn’t want to walk into the lion’s den.  Um, hello?  Did you just say that you are afraid to defend your position?  Are you telling me that you made these statements but don’t believe in them enough to justify them to others?  You hypocritical coward!  This is exactly why I don’t believe politicians and people in general.  If you are not willing to defend your positions then shut up.  You don’t have the convictions of your beliefs then don’t tell me what they are!

I will challenge anyone in their beliefs because it is only by challenging our own beliefs that we strengthen them.  I mean, come on, if your belief system can’t handle a challenge then why do you believe in it?  Convenience?  Inertia?  I know that most people who believe in a religion came by it because someone “gave” it to them.  Very few people seek out religion by challenging themselves and the various options before coming to a decision.  They accept the religion handed to them by their parents, or find acceptance in a group that happens to be a church.  But then they don’t challenge themselves or their beliefs leaving themselve, I believe, weaker for the lack of effort.  It means we don’t have to think for ourselves, something mankind has been good at.

But the point is simple: if you don’t believe in what you say or feel strongly enough to be challenged for it, then stop spouting it in public and then running away when someone calls you on it.  Keep your weak beliefs to yourself and stop trying to force others to believe as you do.  It’s not a strong enough argument.

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | 1 Comment »

9. October 2007 by Rob.

Ok, I have been quiet about him since he first came into the light (and out of the closet, sort of) but now he’s gone and made comments that just got to me. So I have to ask the first question that came to my mind when I heard him talking about having a “wide stance” in the bathroom. Um, Larry, weren’t you wearing pants when you were in the stall? And when you were wearing those pants in the stall, weren’t you doing your “business” (I heard you say that’s why you were in there) and if so, wouldn’t your pants have been somewhere down between your knees and ankles?

If you were, in fact, in the stall trying to “cleanse the colon,” how wide a stance could you possibly have had? I mean, you’re not that fat, so your pants should have been restricting the “travel” of your legs to a reasonable distance. So you either had your pants at your knees and looked like a strange travois with your feet splayed apart or you weren’t wearing your pants in which case I would have to assume that you really were not in the stall for digestive waste removal. I mean, really!

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | 2 Comments »