My Lifeline - My Wonderful Readers

I think people at times do not understand how blogging can become a significant part of one's life. In my own case, my readers and their comments and supportive communications to me are often a lifeline for me when I am feeling overwhelmed or even to the point of giving up on my journey/life. While I receive wonderful messages such as the one below that say that I have given strength to others, the reality is that my readers are the often the ones who have given me the strength to carry on. Here's a portion of a recent message that I just referenced from someone thousands of miles away whom I have never met in person:

*

Michael, thank you for being in my life. I'm glad I know you. My life would be poorer without you in it. Thank you for all you do and all that you are. Your tremendous courage regarding being gay has enabled me to be who I am today. THANK YOU xxx

*

As frequent readers know, things have been very rough for me of late and the post-divorce nightmare has pushed me near the point of contemplating another overdose/suicide attempt. Having been stripped of almost all of my financial possessions in the divorce, I refuse to allow the anti-gay prejudiced Virginia legal system - and the bigoted judges I have had to face in particular - to take away my dignity as well. What has helped me to hold on and not give in to the urge to simply end it all to date has been not only my concerns for how my death would impact my children, the boyfriend, my mother and my siblings, but also my fear that I'd be failing my readers like the one who authored the quoted message. Maybe it's pride on my part, but I do not want to let my cyberspace friends and family down either.

*

I would ask each one of your to never underestimate your own power to pass on strength to me and others around you. The coming out process and living with dignity in an anti-gay society takes a great deal of support and I thank all those who have been so supportive of me. Time and time again my readers have been there when I needed them and you all underestimate how important you are in helping me to try to stay true to my journey. Please accept my sincere thank you.

Gay Marriage Stalls in Rhode Island

As gay marriage is otherwise sweeping across New England, Rhode Island is an island of reactionaries. Why? Because of that bastion of 13th century thinking, the Roman Catholic Church. Just as the Church wrongly clung to ignorance as it prosecuted Galileo and as it still treats women as inferior beings, the Church refuses to accept modern medical and mental health knowledge concerning sexual orientation. For an institution that has such a horrific history of being wrong on so many issues, one would think that someone at the Vatican might ponder whether or not the Church's certitude on same sex relationships might just be incorrect. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post that look at the Church's obstruction of modern thought:

*

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Gay marriage could soon become the law of the land across New England _ except in the heavily Roman Catholic state of Rhode Island. A string of sudden successes for gay marriage advocates has left Rhode Island a political outlier. . . . Yet the movement has stalled in Rhode Island, perhaps even lost ground, after a stalemate at the Statehouse, a loss in the state's top court and continued opposition from religious leaders.

*

Religion remains among the biggest hurdles. A recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut showed 46 percent of Rhode Islanders identify themselves as Roman Catholic, a larger percentage than any other state. Given its size, the church carries political clout. On the last Inauguration Day, every statewide elected official began the morning with a special Mass at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul, celebrated by Bishop Thomas Tobin.

*

Tobin does not hesitate to tussle with politicians, especially on gay marriage. He calls gay unions a perversion of natural law and a violation of an institution that Catholics believe was created by God. Two years ago, he harshly criticized Attorney General Patrick Lynch, a Catholic, for advising state agencies to recognize the marriages of gay couples wed outside Rhode Island. "We don't see it as a civil rights issue," Tobin said in a recent interview, "because there's never a right to do something that's morally wrong."

*

Even if a simple majority of lawmakers backed Perry's bill, Republican Gov. Don Carcieri _ another Catholic _ would almost certainly veto it. Overriding a veto requires the support of 60 percent of lawmakers in each chamber. . . . It might become slightly easier for those looking to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island when Carcieri finishes his second and final term as governor in January 2011. Potential candidates including former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an independent, and Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts and Attorney General Patrick Lynch, both Democrats, support gay marriage.

*

Bishop Tobin worries about "moral wrongs" unless of course it involves the Catholic Church and the sexual abuse of minors by priests. Then, like all the rest of the morally bankrupt hierarchy his voice is silent. If Tobin wants any credibility on any issue, he must first start loudly demanding that his compatriots who enabled and/or covered up the sexual abuse of minors be removed from their positions. Since I doubt that will ever happen, the pompous hypocrite ought to simply shut up. He's a fraud plain and simple.

Smithfield Wine Surprise

The boyfriend has a huge number of women friends through his popular and long established hair salon and last night one of his clients bought us tickets to attend a wine tasting and barbecue in Smithfield, Virginia, which is across the nearly 5 miles wide James River from Newport News/Hampton. Smithfield is typically best known for Smithfield Foods - the pork industry giant. It's actually a very old area with a great deal of history and the home of St. Luke's Church (pictured at left) which was founded in 1632 and is reportedly the oldest Gothic structure in the USA. In the early days of the area, the church with its massive brick walls doubled as a fortress when the area was under attack.

*

In any event, I wasn't sure quite what to anticipate since despite its historical interests and charms, Smithfield is relatively rural and not in the most progressive areas in Virginia. The wine tasting was at a shop called the Bon Vivant Market which has an amazing inventory of fine wines. The other attendees - including one of the local judges - were a lively and interesting group and truly could not have been nicer or more accepting of us as the lone gay couple. To my amazement, one of the younger women even said to us that she was thrilled about Maine's passage of gay marriage and that she couldn't wait until Virginia got in step with the future and recognize relationships such as ours.

*

Perhaps the wine tasting nature of the event winnowed out the Christian fundamentalist crowd from attending, but I was truly impressed with the sophistication and open mindedness of the people we met. After the tasting we went to the home of a friend of the boyfriend's client - Paula is her name - and a group of us continued to socialize. On the way home we put down the top on the car and enjoyed the gorgeous full moon sparkling on the waters of the James River as we headed back to Hampton. It was a fabulous evening and since the wine tastings are a regular event, we will definitely go back. I highly recommend them to any local readers. The evening definitely helped me forget at least temporarily the horrible post-divorce wars launched by my former wife.

We Could Support Gay SCOTUS, But Not One With "Pro-Gay Ideology"

The caption of this post describes recent remarks attributed to Focus on the Family and Family Research Council in connection with the opening on the U. S. Supreme Court arising from David Souter's announced retirement. Do I believe it? No - I don't believe anything that either of these organizations say unless it is a statement that they detest gays and will do all in their power to depict us as sub-human. Why then these remarks? Perhaps its merely a smoke screen given the disastrous anti-gay marriage campaign of the National Organization for Marriage which was become a comical farce and hence the efforts of FOTF and FRC to appear less whacked out than they truly are once one looks at their websites and historic agendas. Moreover, I suspect that a "pro-gay ideology" would encompass anything other than one hiding in the closest and/or someone riddled with internalized homophobia. It will be interesting to see how quickly FOTF and FRC show their true colors. Here are highlights:

*

Yesterday I reported that the religious right group Focus on the Family said that they wouldn’t oppose an openly-gay nominee to the Supreme Court on the basis of their sexual orientation. Now a second top religious right organization, Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, is declaring something similar — it’s a shift in emphasis from its harder-line stance against gay judges two years ago, and another sign of the changing times. To be sure, the group is hedging a bit. Its position : Being gay would not in and of itself rule out getting the group’s support, though having a “pro-gay ideology” would.

*

“But if a person does publicly identify as gay or lesbian, or particularly if a person has been involved with homosexual rights activism at any level, then there would have to be serious questions asked about whether he or she would impose a pro-gay ideology on the court.” Sprigg added that homosexuality in and of itself would not be a “determinant” against the acceptability of the nominee.

*
That’s not as hard-line as two years ago, when the Family Research Council argued: “We don’t accept that homosexuality is any kind of cultural identity that should be sought in a judge.” To be sure, it’s unlikely that either of these groups would support any Obama nominee, simply because of philosophical differences. But the unwillingness of these groups to rule out opposition to an openly-gay nominee is a big sign of how much things have shifted towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

*
Goups that see homosexuality as a fundamentally illegitimate and morally questionable lifestyle are no longer willing to say openly that its a disqualifier from serving on the highest court.

Friday Male Beauty

We Ignore Our Enemies At Our Peril

Kevin Naff has a timely editorial in today's Washington Blade that focuses upon the need for the LGBT community to remain vigilant and on guard against the efforts of our enemies who are fanatics who will work constantly to harm us and deny us equality under the laws. Yes, the advances in marriage rights over the last few weeks has been stunning, but at the same time we must remember that these very advances will make our hate filled opponents redouble their efforts against us. In the process we need to understand that no lie or falsehood is too outrageous for those who are mentally and emotionally unbalanced. Just as the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, we need to be watchful against a resurgence of the Christian Taliban in this country. Here are highlights from Kevin's column:

*

IN THIS NEW, unfamiliar era of fast-paced change, it’s tempting to shrug off our opponents as bigots or laughingstocks and sit back awaiting the inevitability of full equality under the law. As gay rights opponents like Maggie Gallagher, Carrie Prejean and even Joe the Plumber become increasingly shrill and are widely mocked and dismissed by the mainstream media’s talking heads, it’s easy to be lulled into a sense that the culture wars are over.

*

HERE IN WASHINGTON, longtime gay rights supporter Marion Barry developed amnesia and came out publicly against a same-sex marriage recognition bill that he co-introduced. His announcement at a rally organized by anti-gay “Bishop” Harry Jackson and attended mostly by black opponents of gay marriage stunned local activists. Just how many of Jackson’s followers actually live in D.C. is unknown, but the image of a crowd of black churchgoers facing off against a mostly white gay male contingent of activists represents a challenge not to be underestimated. D.C. is a majority black city and the well-funded right-wing groups, led by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, are poised to make an example of the D.C. Council if it proceeds with marriage legislation as expected this summer.

*

AS THE BARRY drama unfolded, more anti-gay invective spewed from the Capitol, as House lawmakers debated the hate crimes bill. Conservative Republican members stooped to appalling levels of rhetoric in their attempt to sabotage the measure. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) employed the old “lifestyle choice” slur to assail the bill. But the most egregious attack came from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who said it’s “a hoax” to think that gay college student Matthew Shepard was killed in 1998 because of his sexual orientation. If you thought such blatant bigotry and homophobia were passé and politically incorrect in the Obama era, think again.

*

And speaking of Obama, last week brought another disappointment, this time out of the White House. The official White House web site was updated and the much-lauded section on civil rights and LGBT rights severely edited. . . . But one change to the site has me concerned. The language related to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” represents a departure from the earlier iteration of the site. . . . The site was changed last week to read: “He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security.”“Changing” the policy and “repealing” it are not necessarily the same thing. After a mostly online outcry over the changes, the web site language was changed for a second time late Friday.

*

All of these developments, which occurred within the span of a single busy week, point to the need for continued vigilance. There will likely be no better time to pursue significant gay rights advances than 2009 and we must guard against squeamishness and backsliding by our allies.

*

In short, we have relentless enemies and allies such as Barack Obama who - at least in my view - cannot necessarily be trusted. I will continue to see Obama as a cynical opportunist who used the LGBT community until such time as he delivers on his promises, starting with hate crimes legislation, ENDA and Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal.

How Christianists Ignore and/or Twist the Truth

Overnight I received an anonymous comment attacking me personally for my recent posts about Congressman Randy Forbes and his efforts to re-write history and foists the "Christian nation myth" on the public via a Congressional Resolution. I would point out again that Mr. Forbes forgets that as a Congressman, he is supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution which provides for the separation of church and state. Instead he seeks the establishment of a sick version of Christianity as the quasi-official national religion.

*

The writer - who strikes me as a likely Republican from my past - also accuses me of being "against God", suggesting that perhaps I should have allowed God to "change me straight," and needing to remember that God loves me. Obviously, the writer must be a Kool-Aid drinker if they subscribe to the "choice myth" concerning sexual orientation which has been rejected by all legitimate medical and mental health experts other than the non-witch doctor like reparatory therapist devotees at NARTH and bogus Christian "ministries" like Daddy Dobson's Love Won Out. Likewise, the writer has not read this blog sufficiently to grasp that I foolishly tried to change the unchangeable for 37 years. News bulletin: sexual orientation is not something one chooses or can change. You can deny it, try to push it out of your consciousness, torment and hate yourself, etc., but it remains what it is. Would that I had figured that out earlier in my life.

*

As for the claim that I am against God, that is - pardon my French - utter bull s*it. I am merely against the hypocritical Christianist approach to God which involves selectively picking and choosing passages from the Bible and basing ones belief system largely on who one hates and condemns. I still consider myself a Christian and belong to a church. Yes, I do reject the corrupt aspects of institutional religion, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the falsely pious Southern Baptist Convention (which originally came into being so that it could continue to support slavery when the northern Baptists became abolitionists). I am well aware that God loves me - I just wish some of his alleged followers showed more love to their fellow man and would not do all in their power to demonize and stigmatize others who are different than themselves.

*

As for my children, they fortunately seem to accept me for who I am and seem to truly like the boyfriend. They also have come to reject both the Republican Party with its de facto religious tests for membership and the hypocritical and corrupt Catholic Church. I sincerely hope they each find a new church home where they feel welcome and comfortable. One prerequisite they look for is a church's acceptance of gays which excludes many churches from their consideration. I would also add that they seem to recognize that I am a far happier person than when I was in the closet and understand that my self-hatred over my sexual orientation sometimes made me less than the father I should have been for them. I am doing all that I can to atone for my past failings.

*

Bottom line, I believe I am following the path God wants for me. Indeed, I feel called by God to work tirelessly to expose the Christianists who have perverted Christ's Gospel message into something hateful.

Grove City College Student Suspended for Gay Porn Role

I am sorry that John Gechter - a student at far right Christianist Grove City College - pictured at left in the photo has been suspended for a year for having acted in gay porn movies, thereby exhibiting "behavior contrary to the values" of the College. Gecther says he used his porn income to pay Grove City's high tuition costs. Nonetheless, it's rather humorous since Grove City College is the home of Prof. Warren Throckmorton who until recently was one of the high priests (or maybe priestesses) of the choice myth and formerly traveled around the country claiming that sexual orientation can be changed. Throckmorton has backed down a lot of late - perhaps out of fear he will lose his license if the APA comes out 100% against reparative therapy. Slog has more details on the story and also speculates on the high incidence of closet cases at Christian colleges:

*

What are the odds that a lot of closeted gay kids go to Christian colleges? High, I'd say. And what are the odds that lots of closeted gay kids at Christian colleges—and their closeted profs, closeted staffers, closeted youth pastors, et al—download and watch a whole lot of gay porn? Also high. So what are the odds that a student at a Christian college who appears in gay porn under a pseudonym is gonna get caught? Higher still, as it turns out.

*

Twenty-two-year-old John Gechter, of Philadelphia, was suspended for one year pending appeal from Grove City College after a student saw him last month in a video posted online.

*

Gechter is appealing the suspension and says he may sue claiming that the gay porn job isn't any of the school's business, especially since he performed using the name "Vincent DeSalvo." Gechter says he used his porn income to pay for his schooling. School officials say Gechter is suspended because Gechter was well aware his porn involvement "exhibited behavior contrary to the values" of the school about 50 miles north of Pittsburgh.

*

I once had a gay friend who formerly lived in Lynchburg, Virginia, home of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University who used to remark all the time that most of the men on gay.com in that area were either (i) married men looking for gay sex or (ii) Liberty University boys looking for hook ups. Thus, John Gecther was likely only one of many Grove City boys into gay sex. Also, who was the Grove City student who was looking at the porn who rated out Gecther?

Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Will Result in Polygamy, Bestiality, Child Molestation, and Pedophilia

UPDATED: Here's some of Pat's rant via Towleroad:

*

"We haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent."

*

Hmm, if we are talking about "Biblical standards" Pat, what happened to love of neighbor, not bearing false witness, not promoting hate, etc>?

*

Pat Robertson, one of this area's most delusional Christianist fruitcakes and perennial embarrassments has shot gone off his mouth again. (The photo is the one that motivated to expel a student from third rate Regent Law School some time back when the student used the picture on his web page. Pat can dish it out but he can't take it himself.) In any event, this time brother Pat is spouting off about gay marriage and the parade of horrors that he says it portends. According to Mr. "I'd like to blow up the United Nations Robertson," if gay marriage is allowed, the gates will be thrown open for the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation, pedophilia.

*

Why anyone one who is not certifiably deranged listens to this man who has made a fortune peddling snake oil to the gullible is baffling. For that matter, I find it equally baffling as to why the Norfolk Airport Authority allows Pat's Regent University to place large paid murals in the Norfolk airport concourse as if they are seeking to cause anyone progressive coming to the area to turn around and get right back on the plane that brought them to the area. But we digress. Media Matters has Pat in full homophobic rant here. This is the clip of his rant:
*

Randy Forbes Pushing Resolution on National Role of Religion

Just the other day we commented on Randy Forbes' rant against the hate crimes bills in the House of Representatives. Now Forbes is pushing a worthless resolution that has no purpose other than to provide orgasms to far right Christianists by "affirming the country’s “rich spiritual and religious history.” If Forbes were from anywhere in the Hampton's Roads area other than Chesapeake - one of the most reactionary cities in the area when it comes to social issues and recognizing the separation of church and state - he'd never dare introduce such a resolution, particularly when the nation has so many much more pressing issues that need to be addressed. And the GOP wonders why it is losing support and appearing increasingly irrelevant and/or delusional. If Randy wants some accurate information on this nation NOT being a Christian nation, all he needs to do is call me and I will gladly provided it. Here are some highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

*

As U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes tries again to get Congress to approve a resolution affirming the country’s “rich spiritual and religious history,” he’s taking issue with President Barack Obama’s recent comments on religion and politics.

*
During a visit to Turkey last month, Obama said, “One of the great strengths of the United States is, although I have mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
That’s just incorrect, Forbes said Wednesday.

*

An identical resolution, introduced by Forbes last year, died in a congressional committee. This year’s measure, HR397, is co-sponsored by 24 other legislators, but it has drawn criticism from opponents who say it is revisionist history because it doesn’t include historical information that would contradict Forbes’ views.

*
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Forbes’ proposal “is not a fair or accurate representation of what religious liberty has meant in this country.” “This is done solely to score political points now and in the event it ever comes up for a vote, to chastise as non-religious those who don’t vote for it,’’ Lynn said.

*

The Rev. Geoffrey V. Guns, pastor of Second Calvary Baptist Church in Norfolk, said . . . “I would have a little concern with someone who would want to legislate that America is a religious nation,” Guns said. “Then you have to say, 'Whose religion?’ and, 'Who is religious?’”

Obama Remains Missing in Action of LGBT Issues

I have taken Obama to task a number of times for his failure to do anything truly meaningful on the gay rights front since his inauguration. Indeed, he has seemed more concerned about coddling and kissing up to vile Christianist liars like Rick Warren rather than take steps to keep his promises to those who helped get him elected. Now, the New York Times has an article that looks at Obama's failures to support those who supported him other than by occasional lip service. At times I am baffled as to whether the root cause is a lack of courage or whether Obama never truly intended to follow through for LGBT Americans in the first place. Here are some story highlights from the Times:

*

WASHINGTON — President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.

*

Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine. . . . many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience. But some are unsettled by what they see as the president’s cautious approach. Many are . . . suspicious of Mr. Obama’s commitment to their cause.

*

In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, “How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?” Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post headlined, “Where’s our fierce advocate?” The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials. . .

*

Some say change is inevitable, not only for Mr. Obama but also for other Democratic politicians who have embraced civil unions but rejected same-sex marriage. Now that the Iowa ruling has pushed the battle into the nation’s heartland, the issue will inevitably come up during the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential campaign.

*

For the record, I no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Unless and until he gets some backbone and does something substantive, my operating assumption is that he cynically used LGBT Americans and I have no intention of forgiving him for it either.

Thursday Male Beauty

Sex and the Single Priest

I'm obviously no fan of the Roman Catholic Church and as a former Catholic I believe the Church's requirement of priestly celibacy is ridiculous - after all, the policy was first implemented to avoid losing money to the families of priests, not for any true theological reason - and largely sets the stage for the sexual abuse of minors which has likely plagued the Church for centuries, not just decades. As Time is reporting, the Church hierarchy in South Florida has its panties in a wad over a charismatic priest, Rev. Alberto Cutié, who - God forbid - has normal sexual attractions to women of legal age. Why is it that the Church can enable and/or cover up the sexual abuse of minors, yet still not face the fact that celibacy is an ABNORMAL condition for those who are normal be they gay or straight. Here are some highlights from Time's coverage:

*

If only it were the worst thing that a Roman Catholic priest has been caught doing. The Mexican celebrity magazine TVnotas recently published 25 paparazzi photos of the Rev. Alberto Cutié, the popular Miami Beach priest famous for his Spanish-language television and radio talk shows, cavorting amorously on a Florida beach with an attractive woman. Over a three-day period, the pictures also captured him kissing her in a bar. In one of TVnotas's "in fragranti" shots [Note to TVnotas copy editors: it's "in flagrante"] the woman wraps her legs around Cutié; in another, Cutié has a hand down her swimsuit, fondling her rear end.

*

Because of the scandal, the Archdiocese of Miami says Cutié, 40, is no longer the administrator of his Miami Beach parish, and it has barred him from leading Sunday mass there. His media work seems up in the air now, and the popular website padrealberto.net has only a blue screen with a message from Cutié asking forgiveness.

*

But Cutie's penalty might elicit more than a few snickers from Catholics who have spent the past few decades watching the priestly perdition parade of sexual abuse, parish embezzlement and doctrinal intolerance. The Miami archdiocese has had to pay out millions of dollars in sexual-abuse settlements in recent years — including a case involving a former priest at Cutié's South Beach church, St. Francis de Sales. . . . so long as Cutié wasn't frolicking with a minor (female or male) or using parish funds to buy margaritas for his paramour, many parishioners may actually be relieved that their popular priest has a libido focused on a woman who has reached the age of consent.

*

What's more, one of the pillars of Cutié's popularity is his relationship counseling. To any Catholic who's had to suffer through a lecture on marriage from a celibate kid just out of seminary, Cutié's romantic romp might just make him a more appealing priest — more human, perhaps, than Catholic clergy who deny communion to divorcees, gays and anyone else who dares violate the Church's litany of "non-negotiable" rules.

*

the Cutié scandal is sure to ratchet up debate over clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church, a spiritual ideal that seems to collide more often today with biological reality. . . . A bigger problem for the Church, however, may be Cutié's Oprah-like standing in the Latino community — the only demographic where the U.S. Catholicism is experiencing growth. America's Catholic bishops, many of whom are widely accused of allowing the sexual abuse crisis to happen, must realize that Cutié is more well regarded among Catholics than they are, especially among Latinos.

*

In my view, unless and until the Church allows married priests it can count on continuing to recruit misfits and those utterly out of touch with the realities with which their parishioners live each day.

Washington Post Looks at "Outrage"

I have already commented on the new documentary movie "Outrage" which looks at closeted politicians with anti-gay politicians. However, all too often what blogs bring to light doesn't equate to coverage in the main stream media - which has complicity in allowing closet cases like Ed Schrock (pictured at left), David Drier and according to Outrage, Charlie Crist, remain in the closet despite numerous leads to the truth of their double lives, not to mention homophobic voting records. Former local Congressman Ed Schrock had the second most conservative voting records and made statements about the unfitness of gays to serve in the military as he himself used "Mega Phone" to find partners for gay trysts. Fortunately, due to the efforts of some locals and Mike Rogers at BlogActive.com, Schrock's hypocritical double life was exposed and ultimately his seat has come to be held by a far more gay friendly Congressman. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post (which has complicity issues of its own):

*

The closet, he points out, forces those who engage in homosexual acts to lead lives of elaborate deception, to betray their spouses, to seek anonymous sex. Conservative public officials who are gay, the film argues, adopt protective camouflage by opposing any legislation -- HIV/AIDS funding, benefits for unmarried partners, same-sex marriage -- that might identify them as pro-gay: It's a tactic that sets up an interior war against their essential selves.

*

"The psychology of these people who would, in exchange for a political career, lead a double life, that's almost a Shakespearean character," Dick says. This dissonance is part of what attracted him to the topic. It supplies a depth to the screen proceedings beyond mere prurience. It also adds to the director's more direct message: He wants to "advance the cause of gay rights," including same-sex marriage, he says. And, "I hope that this film contributes in some ways to the lessening and perhaps eventual demise of the closet."

*

Their names were bandied about among journalists, and you could easily find them in blogs or political-circuit chatter. But the mainstream media refused to out them even though "the gay press has been writing about this for many, many years," Dick says. Informed that this newspaper's policy is to identify only self-declared homosexuals, he's perplexed and perceives a double standard. . . . The allegedly gay politicians and others he names in his film (at least five by our count) "are public officials; this is reporting on hypocrisy, and there is an obligation on the press to write about it."

*

Some gay-rights supporters consider Rogers's tactics odious and invasive. Dan Gurley, who was national field director for the Republican National Committee in 2004, once called the blogger "despicable." It's easy to see why: A couple of months before the election, Rogers outed Gurley on Blogactive.com and later posted the RNC official's Gay.com dating profile. Gurley never hid being gay, but to avoid further controversy, he says, the GOP kicked him to the curb when he sought a position in the second Bush administration.

*

As I have said before, I totally support outing closeted politicians who embrace anti-gay legislation and make life worse for the rest of us. They can stay in the closet if the want, but once they support anti-gay legislation, they put a bull's eye on their own backs.

NYT: Pass the Matthew Shepard Act

Given all the insane rants and duplicitous lies being disseminated by the "Godly Christian" set in respect to the pending hate crimes bill now before the United States Senate, it is nice to find sane voices that make a reasoned case for the bill's passage. One such voice is the editorial page of the New York Times which has endorsed the passage of the bill and brushed aside the delusional and untrue statements of the bill's opponents. Indeed, if this nation is to ever live up to its alleged status as the land of liberty and justice for all, passage of the hate crimes legislation is a must. Here are some highlights from yesterday's column:

*
After years of unconscionable delay, the House has approved legislation that would, for the first time, extend federal hate-crimes law to give substantive coverage to gay people. The act would be an important step forward in protecting all minorities from violence and a tribute to a young man whose life was cut short by bigotry.
*

The Matthew Shepard Act, as the bill is known in the Senate, would provide increased funding to state and local authorities to prosecute a wide range of hate crimes — ones motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It would also authorize the federal government to prosecute these crimes when states fail to do so.

*
The biggest beneficiaries would probably be African-Americans, who make up the largest group of hate-crime victims. It would also help Hispanics, who have been increasing targets of anti-immigrant hatred. The bill’s opponents have focused on the protection of gay people, who were the victims in more than 16 percent of the hate crimes reported by the F.B.I. in 2007.

*

In addition to providing more resources, the act would serve an important public education role, underscoring the seriousness and horror of these crimes. In a particularly ugly moment in last week’s House debate, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, declared that Mr. Shepard’s death was “a hoax,” repeating a right-wing canard that he was not a target because he was gay. Luckily, Ms. Foxx is part of a dwindling — if still too vocal — minority. A Hart Research poll released in February 2007 found that 73 percent of those surveyed support hate-crimes legislation that protects gays.
*

After the House’s strong vote — 249 to 175 — in favor of the bill, the Senate needs to follow. Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has introduced the companion bill, which has bipartisan support. Harry Reid, the majority leader, should quickly schedule a vote.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Generations Disagree on Same-Sex Marriage

No doubt this new poll reported by CNN will further enliven the aging Christianist and professional Christianist set to try to redouble their anti-gay jihad because it shows that time is running out for the Christianist/Mormon hate based agenda much as the racism seen in the older generations is far less prevalent in the younger generations who merely see blacks and other minorities as other people like themselves as opposed to some alien species to be segregated and looked down upon. The poll also shows the importance of LGBT Americans being out to friends, family and co-workers because those who know gays are much more in favor of LGBT equality. I truly believe that the day will come when the extreme homophobes of the Christian Right will be viewed in a similar light to George Wallace standing in the school house door blocking black children from entering an all white school. Here are some highlights on the poll results:

*

[A]mong those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll.

*
While a majority of those polled oppose legalizing gay marriage, six of ten said states that do not recognize gay marriages should allow civil unions. When it comes to supporting civil unions, the poll indicates a similar generational shift.

*

Forty-nine percent of those questioned say they have a family member or close friend who is gay. That's up eight points from 1998 and 17 points from 1992. Fifty-eight percent of those aged 18 to 34 say they have a family member or close friend who's gay. That drops to just one in three of people 65 or older. "People who say they have a gay friend or relative support same-sex marriage," Holland notes. "Most of those who say they don't know anyone who is gay, oppose gay marriage."

*

The poll indicates that close to 40 percent of Democrats oppose legalizing gay marriage. But Schneider says there's a risk for conservatives if they make same-sex marriage an issue in the fight over a Supreme Court nomination. "Young voters strongly favor marriage equality. They're the future of American politics," says Schneider.

*

I hope I live long enough to see the total defeat of the anti-gay Bible beaters on the issue of gay equality and marriage.

Marie Osmond Comes Out for Gay Marriage

Kudos to Marie for putting her denomination's anti-gay rhetoric behind her and coming out in support of her daughter and marriage equality. As a parent, I have never understood how a good, loving parent could disown their own child simply because they are gay or lesbian or transgendered. Personally, I'd die for any one of my children. Yet far too many Christianists, Mormons, and other Kool-Aid drinkers do just that. I always have to wonder if these people were ever even decent parents in the first place if they can throw their own child out on the streets. No doubt Marie will have some religious extremists condemning her, but I believe that she has done exactly what Christ would have wanted and what he would have done himself. Here are some highlights via Pam's House Blend:

*

Actress and singer Marie Osmond was on a radio station KOST 103.5 Los Angeles yesterday, discussing her lesbian daughter Jessica and Marie's beliefs.Contrary to rumors, Marie spoke of how much she loves and supports her daughter, despite her own Mormon religious convictions. Naturally, the gay marriage question came up, and, we're proud to say, Marie spoke in support of civil rights for everyone, regardless of orientation.

*

An audio clip of Marie's comments can be found here. Hopefully, Marie's courage will embolden others to likewise do the right thing. Contact Marie Osmond at Kesti@marieosmond.com to thank her for speaking out about her daughter, and for supporting marriage equality.

What the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill Really Says

I posted earlier today about the explosin of lies coming from the Christianists over the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill (the photo at left is where Shepard's was found bound and beaten) now before the U.S. Senate. An anonymous commenter in a snide tone - it's always the anonymous commenters that are snippy and nasty - asked why I had not documented that the Christianists statements were not true. In fact, I have quoted portions of the bill (S. 909) in prior posts, but to prove to those who do not want to believe that "Godly Christians" lie incessantly, here are some more exerpts. Note that the bill talks of acts of BODILY INJURY, not speech or sermons:

*

‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
*
(a) In General-
*
(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
*
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
*
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
*
(I) death results from the offense; or
*
(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
*

*

(c) Definitions- In this section--

(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
*
(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
*
(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
*

(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

*

Of equal importance are the following exemptions from application of the Bills protections based on sexual orientation or gender expression:

*

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
*
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

*

Again, there is no way to put it nicely. Daddy Dobson, Janet Folger Porter and the rest of the professional Christian hacks decrying the hate crimes bill are LIARS and they are lying DELIBERATELY. They care NOTHING about the truth and are nothing less than shameless demagogues who are likely putting money in their pockets derived from the the ignorant, bigoted, or uninformed. Their conduct is anything but Christ like.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Bigots and Haters at FOTF Send Out Action Alert on Hate Crimes

As I have noted countless times, part of me is always amazed - but not surprised - at the lengths to which the professional Christians will go in knowingly disseminating lies and total untruths about LGBT Americans and any legislation which would give us legal rights or protections enjoyed by other citizens. It's as if the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness simply did not exist. The willingness of these people to lie with impunity is what to me shows their utter moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy. Among the most disingenuous liars is James Dobson and his henchmen at Focus on the Family who are in near hysteria over the House of Representative's passage of the Matthew Shepard Act. Consistent with their past lies, FOTF is sending out the following action alert:

*

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote soon on legislation that would create a new class of crimes based on the traits of the victim, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."

*
Under "hate-crimes" laws like S.909, pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.Please tell your senators that every human being deserves to be equally protected. Ask them to oppose S.909.

*

Dobson's equally dishonest ally, Janet Folger Porter, has equally outrageous and untrue statements over at Wingnut Net Daily where she about blows a gasket while venting. Here's a sampling of Folger-Porter's lies:

*

I've written extensively about how this bill would criminalize Christianity and turn those who disagree with the homosexual agenda into felons, but criminalizing Christianity is just the beginning of what this bill would do. It would also elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term "sexual orientation," which has been added to the "hate crimes" legislation, includes them in the American Psychiatric Association's definition of various "sexual orientations" (30 of these APA "sexual orientations" are listed in a fact sheet provided by the Traditional Values Coalition).

*

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

*

Of course, the claim that pastors or a mother in the quoted example could be prosecuted is totally untrue, but when have Dobson, Folger-Porter ever let the truth get in the way of their anti-gay, pro-theocracy agenda (personally, I believe God has a special place in Hell for Dobson and Ms. Porter and those like them who have made a career out of marketing hatred of others). Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend - who I had the pleasure of meeting at the Blogger Summit last December - has some great commentary on Daddy D and his fellow haters:

*

There is a paragraph in it that angered me immensely: "There is no evidence of an epidemic of sexual-orientation 'hate crimes' in this country," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "So, what's the real reason for this bill? Gay activists want to silence those who speak out against homosexuality."

*

Well, Ashley Horne, federal hate crime legislation isn't about wanting to "...silence those who speak out against homosexuality," unless it's speech connected to violent crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, with the victims over these violent crimes selected specifically because the victim is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

*

"So, what's the real reason that Ashley Horne of Focus On The Family and her conservative 'Christian' cohorts? Conservative 'Christians' like Ashley Horne want to protect the 'free speech' of convicted killers like Allen Ray Andrade. They want people like Andrade to be able to safely terrorize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual people with their bias motivated, violent crimes, with 'free speech' statements connected to the violent crimes, such as Andrade's 'Gay things must die' and 'It's not like I went up to a schoolteacher and shot her in the head or ... killed a law-abiding straight citizen.'"

*

I increasingly see the Christianists like Dobson and Folger-Porter as a cancer on society that seeks to poison hearts and minds with hate driven viciousness against those who are different or who refuse to live by the perverted religious beliefs of Christianist nutcases. They are NOT nice or good people and the sooner the larger public realizes this the better off we will be as a nation

Catholic Vapors Over "Angels and Demons"

In a case of all to common crocodile tears the Vatican and its usual sycophants such as William Donohue at the Catholic League are having vapors and squealing "anti-Catholic bigotry" over the release of the movie Angels and Demons based on Dan Brown's book of the same name. First, any rational person - which obviously excludes Donohue - would know that the piece is a work of FICTION and connect the dots and realize the movie is merely a fictional thriller. Moreover, if the Roman Catholic Church is truly worried about its image in the world, it could (1) impose punishment on those in the Church hierarchy who enabled and/or covered up the world wide sexual abuse of minors and (2) issue a formal and sincere apology for all of the horrible things the Church has done down through history, including the massacre of non-Christians, the Inquisition just for starters. Sadly, we all know that such action will never occur and that the Church savors playing the victim as it victimizes others. Thus, I suspect most people will recognize the Church's current whining for the disingenuous bull shit that it is. Here are some highlights from the Telegraph:

*

The Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, the Bishop of Nottingham, warned that the film could stir up anti-Catholic sentiment."This is so outlandish, it's total rubbish," said Bishop McMahon, who is one of the Church's most senior bishops. "It's mischievous to stir up this kind of anti-Catholic sentiment. It's a gratuitous knocking of the Church and I can't see any reason for it."

*

Ron Howard, the director of Angels & Demons - expected to become the first blockbuster film of the summer when it is released this month - has fired back that Catholics will enjoy the movie, which is based on a previous novel by The Da Vinci Code's author, Dan Brown. His comments will intensify a feud between some prominent Catholic leaders and the Da Vinci Code team over claims that the film smears the Church.

*

The bishop, who chairs the Church's Department of Evangelisation and Catechesis, said that Catholics were "getting tired" of the sensational stories and plotlines contained in Brown's novels and subsequent film adaptations. "I don't think that Catholics will be interested in seeing this as it's so far removed from the truth," he added.

*
Brown's book includes a number of other episodes guaranteed to upset the faithful - including a Pope conceiving a child via artificial insemination, thereby circumventing celibacy rules. Sony Pictures has declined to say whether those incidents make it to the movie. Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the US, accused Howard and Brown of "smearing the Catholic church with fabulously bogus tales".

*

The Vatican, which was predictably offended by the Da Vinci Code plot that involved Jesus fathering a child with Mary Magdalene, did not allow Howard to film in its churches or property. "Normally we read the script," a Vatican spokesman said. "But this time it was not necessary - the name Dan Brown was enough." There has also been high-level discussion within the Holy See about whether to urge a boycott of the film, according to Italian media reports. It took that step with The Da Vinci Code, but the film enjoyed staggering box office takings of $758 million and some Vatican insiders fear their high-profile opposition backfired.

*

But Sony Pictures is not backing away from the controversy and will stage the film's world premier on the Vatican's doorstep in Rome on May 4, 10 days before it opens in British cinemas. "We do not believe the film is anti-Catholic, and we don't believe the nearly 40 million people worldwide who purchased the novel were confused by the fact that this is a fictional mystery thriller," said Steve Elzer, the studio's senior vice-president.

*

Personally, I am tired of the Vatican's lies, hypocrisy and dissemination of anti-gay garbage based on 13th century ignorance. The boyfriend and I both read the book and loved it and we are eagerly awaiting the film's opening locally.

Nude Photos of Miss California Hit the Internet

I know, I know - I said I was finished posting about Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA turned darling of the Christian Right and the anti-gay marriage forces. However, Ms. Prejean is turning into the gift that keeps on giving - delight to to those of us who are sick of the self-anointed keepers of morality and I suspect increasing horror amongst the Christianists. Turns out that Ms. Prejean likes to flash her God given - or perhaps pageant sponsored - hooters off to photographers. Perhaps Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend says it best. Here's Pam's spin on these new revelations:

*

You knew it was only a matter of time before another thing that Maggie's pious National Organization for Marriage touches blows up in its face. Nude photos of Miss Pageant-Paid-for-Jugs-for-Jesus have surfaced and the devoted "Christian" is forced to explain herself. Of course she's just a victim, right? Even a bible-beating homophobic gal's got to make a living. (PopCrunch):

*
Alicia Jacobs, Entertainment Reporter at KVBC in Las Vegas, has seen all six of the photos and says some are much more revealing. Alicia believes the flicks may have been taken after Carrie's pageant-financed breast augmentation about six weeks ago.

*
Hmmm...These explosive pictures could be devastating for Miss California, whose anti-gay marriage campaign recently resulted in a partnership with the National Organization for Marriage and helped to make her increasingly popular with right-wing conservatives. And the fun made the Today Show.

*

No doubt, Ms. Prejean will claim that she's being oppressed and persecuted because she's a Christian rather than because she's a brainless idiot. I wonder if Tim Wildmon and Tony Perkins like the newly discovered photos.