Saturday Male Beauty

Roots of a Warped View of Sexuality

As I have noted many times before, the Roman Catholic Church - in which I was raised due to my Irish Catholic heritage - has a very warped view of human sexuality. If sex is engaged in for any reason other than procreation, it is bad, if not evil. Indeed, anything that is enjoyable would often suspect to the bitter old queens at the Vatican. The irony is that - at least theoretically - celibate men who know nothing of sexual intimacy themselves dictate what is good and evil about loving sexual relationships. The Irish Times has an interesting and thought provoking column that looks at the Catholic obsession that sex is taboo and how economics and celibate clerics both played a role. Given the huge number of Irish Catholics in the USA and the large numbers of Irish clergy imported to the USA and elsewhere, what happened in Ireland spread far beyond its shores. Here are some highlights:

*

Irish names are prominent wherever in the English-speaking world clerical child sex abuse has been spoken of. Even allowing for the uniquely high number of Irish men among Catholic priests and religious worldwide, this phenomenon is striking. Nowhere else in the Roman Catholic world has another nationality been as dominant among clerical child sex abusers. What was so different about Irish Catholicism that it gave rise to this?

*

WHY IS CLERICAL child sex abuse more prevalent in Irish Catholicism? To answer that, it is necessary to go back. Until 1845 the Irish were a happily sexually active people. With an abundance of cheap food, the population grew. Patches of ground were subdivided with ever-decreasing acreage, producing a sufficient supply of potatoes. In 1841, the island of Ireland had a population of 8.1 million. By 1961, the country having gone through the Famine and emigration, it was 4.2 million.

*

Another effect was an end to subdivision of holdings and diversification away from the potato to other crops, cattle and dairying. This wrench in land use had a defining effect on Irish sexuality. An economic imperative dictated vigorous sexual restraint as, regardless of family size, just one son would inherit. Others – sons and daughters – emigrated or entered the church. This late 19th-century pattern persisted into the 1960s.

*
Sex became taboo. Allied to prudery and a Catholic Church fixated on sex as sin, sensuality was pushed under. A celibate elite became the noblest caste. They had unparalleled influence through their dominance of an emerging middle class, the fact that they were educated when most were not, and the control they had over what there was of an education system and healthcare.

*

In tandem, Rome was experiencing one of its most dogmatic papacies under Pius IX. The longest serving pope (1846-1878), he lost the Papal States and eventually Rome itself to Italian reunification. As his temporal power decreased, he increasingly emphasised the eternal, and compounded a trend – extant in Catholicism since the French revolution – of alienation from this vale of tears. Life became a test, a preparation for death and eternal life under the eye of what Archbishop Diarmuid Martin described last weekend in another context as “a punitive, judgmental God; a God whose love was the love of harsh parents, where punishment became the primary instrument of love”.

*

As well as preaching absolute loyalty to Rome (Pius promulgated the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in 1870) the Vatican’s celibate foot soldiers preached chastity as the greatest virtue. Irish women were expected to emulate the Virgin Mary. In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception – that Mary was born without original sin – embedding still further in the popular Irish Catholic mind a profound association between sex and sin.
The clergy preached that celibate life was superior to married life; that sexual activity outside marriage was evil and even within where the intention was not procreation. Sexual pleasure was taboo, powerful evidence of an inferior animal nature that constantly threatened what was divine in the human.

*
The sermons of Irish Catholic clergy for most of the 120 years between 1850 and 1970 seemed dominated by sex. . . . It is clear that, due to massive repression, Irish male sexuality in particular became, for some, redirected into areas where its expression was least likely to be discovered. For many Irish men, it seems, the combined weight of mother and church ensured that women became a no-no. Some then turned to children. They were accessible to clergy, particularly. With boys it was even easier. No one suspected anything untoward in seeing a man, especially a cleric, with a boy, not least in single-sex institutions.

*

As we learn more and more of our past it becomes clear we were a deeply dysfunctional people – particularly our men – at home and abroad. That this dysfunction persisted is all too painfully clear, as the 2002 Royal College of Surgeons research makes clear.

California Will Not Defend Prop 8 in Federal Court

It is rare that a state refuses to defend one of its laws - or in the case of Proposition 8 an amendment to the state's constitution - when challenged in federal court. Yet that is precisely what is happening with Proposition 8. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declined to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, telling a San Francisco judge that the legality of the anti-gay marriage measure is for the courts to decide. Thus, the Attorney General's office will take no action and any defense of the amendment will fall to others. In my opinion - as has been the case in six states now - equality under the civil laws means full equality, particularly when the only true basis for discrimination comes down to religious based discrimination against LGBT Americans. Here are some highlights from the Los Angeles Times:

*

The governor's decision to remain neutral in a federal challenge to Proposition 8 means no statewide official will be defending the measure in federal court.

*

Supporters of the measure said Wednesday they were disappointed but not surprised by the governor's stance.Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Coalition, said the group was "fairly consistently disappointed with the governor's response to the will of the people in the case of marriage."

*

In declining to take sides in the suit, Schwarzenegger said the case "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination.""In a constitutional democracy, it is the role of the courts to determine and resolve such questions. . . . ," the governor said late Tuesday in his legal reply to the suit. "The Administration encourages the Court to resolve the merits of this action expeditiously."

*

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, going farther than Schwarzenegger, said in his legal response to the suit last week that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. The positions of the governor and the state's top law enforcement officer may leave the defense of Proposition 8 to its campaign proponents, who have asked the court to intervene. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker will consider that request and another to suspend the law pending a trial at a July 2 hearing.

*

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, a group formed by a Los Angeles-based political strategist to launch the lawsuit, praised the governor's action.The "filing by Gov. Schwarzenegger bolsters our call for a swift end to the constitutionally intolerable situation created by Proposition 8," said Chad Griffin, the strategist who started the group.

More Friday Male Beauty

Gay Rights Lawyers: Obama Administration Rebuffed Us

The fallout from the DOJ brief in support of DOMA and less than friendly conduct of Obama administration officials continues to unfold and is increasingly a clusterf*ck for Obama and the DNC in terms of secure LGBT support - and more importantly money. The more information that leaks out, the worse it looks and more high profile LGBT political donors bail from attending the DNC fundraiser on June 25th. For example, two prominent gay rights lawyers litigating high-profile cases against the Obama administration have told the plumeline that their requests to meet with administration lawyers to discuss the cases were rebuffed It seems lies and disingenuous on the part of the Obama administration are reaping just rewards. Personally, I hope the boycott of the DNC fundraiser gathers steam and the event becomes a huge embarrassment. Here are highlights on the administration's treatment of LGBT rights lawyers:

*

Two prominent gay rights lawyers litigating high-profile cases against the Obama administration tell me that their requests to meet with administration lawyers to discuss the cases were rebuffed — something that will further anger gay rights activists who feel badly stiff-armed by Obama on gay rights issues.

*
In both cases, the lawyers are representing Federal employees whose spouses are being denied protections or benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act. The Obama administration, which is officially opposed to DOMA, is defending the act in court and claiming it precludes the granting of some benefits (like health care) to same-sex spouses of Federal employees — the topic of so much controversy this week surrounding a case in California.
*

The refusal of meetings raises new questions about the Obama administration’s commitment to gay rights. Activists say the administration’s lawyers should want to meet to discuss such cases, in hopes that opposing lawyers find a way for the administration to legally grant benefits around DOMA, even as it defends the act in court.

*
But Gary Buseck, the legal director for the gay rights group GLAD, tells me that he was rebuffed after asking Justice Department lawyers earlier this spring to discuss a big case he’s working on: A lawsuit in Boston on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses under DOMA.

*

Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal, had a similar experience on another high-profile case, also in California. She’s representing a U.S. Court of Appeals lawyer who’s fighting the federal Office of Personnel Management. The OPM is refusing benefits to her spouse under DOMA — even though two Federal appeals court judges have said employees of their court are entitled to health benefits for same-sex partners.

*

[T]hese lawyers think this is probably likely to change in the wake of the eruption of controversy over the California case. Nonetheless, it isn’t going to sit well with gay rights activists who are still wondering just how committed the Obama administration is to their cause.

*

I can only wonder WTF the Obama administration when it left a Mormon Bush administration appointee in charge of the brief in support of DOMA last week. They might just as well have assigned the case to Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel - I doubt Staver would have produced a more insulting brief that what was in fact submitted.

Gays in the Military: Let the Evidence Speak

Back in April frigid Christianist ice queen Elaine Donnelly put together a group of elderly/reactionary former military officers that signed on to a poisonous op-ed that supported keeping Don't Ask, Don't Tell ("DADT") in place. Now, former Joint Chief's of Staff Chairman, General John M. Shalikashvili, has penned his own op-ed column that blasts the April anti-gay screed and challenges the U.S. military to learn from the experiences of our allies that have successfully integrated openly gay service members into their armed forces without incident. I do not understand why Americans refuse to learn from the experiences of others - particularly when we have U.S. troops serving side by side in a number of theaters with foreign troops that include openly gay service members. As I have said in numerous previous posts, in this area we have probably many thousands of gays military members on active duty with NO negative impact on morale. Here are highlights from Shalikashvili's column in the Washington Post:

*

News that the president would change the policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue on this page this spring that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military. . . .

*

According to the generals and admirals, allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would make parents less willing to allow their sons and daughters to enlist. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately "break the All-Volunteer Force." Not only is there no evidence to support these conclusions, but research shows conclusively that openly gay service members would not undermine military readiness.

*

Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting -- and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left.

*

But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion.

*

While the proper timing of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993.

*

Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film "Ask Not." In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.

*

[I]t will be important for the conversation about gays and lesbians in the military to be informed by data, not speculation or emotion. That people on all sides of the issue feel strongly about it is more reason, not less, to let the evidence do the talking.

*

We are way past the time when the religious based basis behind DADT needs to be thrown on the dung heap of history. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of - and from religion - yet DADT is in the final analysis based solely on religious based bigotry.

Friday Male Beauty

Stop Funding the Democrats

I continue to feel utterly betrayed by the Obama administration and the president's double speak on LGBT rights issues. Just because he's thrown a few crumbs our way which impact a tiny percentage of our community does not justify allowing ourselves to be manipulated and taken for granted. Fully delivering on a promise or two is the only thing that will convince me that Obama did not cynically con LGBT Americans during his campaign. Others are beginning to feel the same way. First, Andrew Sullivan proposes hitting Obama and the Democrats where it hurts ; stop giving money to them. Here are some highlights that I agree with totally:

*

One way to get the Obama administration's attention on civil rights is for gay people to stop funding the Democrats. That's all these people care about anyway when it comes to gays: our money. If the Democrats refuse to support us, refuse to support them. This is a start. But we need to get more creative. We need actions to highlight the administration's betrayals, postponements and boilerplate. We need to start confronting the president at his events. We need civil disobedience. We need to tell him we do not want another fricking speech where he tells us he is a fierce advocate for our rights, when that is quite plainly at this point not true.

*

If anyone high up in the Obama administration or the Pelosi-Reid Congress gave a damn, much would have been done. We need to swamp Pelosi with phone-calls. We need to target Reid for his inaction.

*

And we have to refuse to attend White House signing ceremonies like yesterday's farce. Really: until they are serious, we should not be coopted and placated with pathetic sops.

*

As ABC News is reporting, some are beginning to follow this approach, beginning with backing out of attendance at a DNC fundraiser schedule for a week from now. I hope the momentum picks up and that there are many more no shows. Here are some highlights:

*

“This is not an appropriate time” for the Democratic party to be hitting up gays and lesbians for money, says Richard Socarides, a former Special Assistant to President Clinton, who’s not attending next week’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee.

*

Socarides says that even though President Obama yesterday signed a presidential memorandum extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, he was also aware of what the President did not do. “The president did not last night address what direction he would give the Justice Department when these issues come up in the future, he did not address the continued discharges of gay people from the military.”

*
Socarides is just the latest in a list of prominent gay and lesbian Democrats withdrawing their support from the DNC event. Others include David Mixner, another former adviser to President Clinton; Andy Towle; and Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda and Foundation.

*

And add gay Democratic donor Bruce Bastian, who told the Washington Blade he “will continue to support certain congressmen, congresswomen and senators whom I believe will continue to fight for our rights, but I don't think blanket donations to the Democratic Party right now are justified, at least not in my book.” He said he found the filing "very offensive."

*

Others include National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey who decried “the malicious and outrageous arguments and language used in the Department of Justice's marriage brief are only serving to inflame and malign the humanity of same-sex couples and our families,” and the Human Rights Campaign’s national field director Marty Rouse, who told the Blade that he “like many people, personally offended by the words used in the [Justice Department] brief to defend DOMA. And I just can't see right now attending a fundraiser for the DNC at this time."

Pat Robertson Proves He's an Ignorant Ass Yet Again

Local embarrassment and Christo-fascist Pat Robertson proves once again that he's a total bigoted ass and that he apparently needs to take some history classes so that he can stop telling the popular Christianist lie that gays have destroyed previous nations. He's likely referring to the fall of Rome and interestingly enough some historians cite the rise of Christianity as one reason Rome fell - along with political instability due to a lack of a succession plan for emperors, too high of tax burden and the Roman army becoming too dependent on mercenaries. Here's his quote via Towleroad:

*
"A month to celebrate gay, lesbian, transgender pride month? Somebody's proud of being transgendered? It's a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of our population. One to two percent has this particular orientation, yet they dominate the news. It's just smiply amazing. Any country that openly embraces homosexuality throughout the history of mankind has gone down into ruin. Thats history. Thats the historical record. Whatever nation embraces this so-called lifestyle, it ends up in the garbage heap of history. So, lets watch what happens."

*

Here's Queerity's take on this idiotic statement:

*

Listening to Pat Robertson talk about the role of gays in America sounds like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking about, well, gays in America: They're the reason we're in such despair!

*
Robertson says that "any country that openly embraces homosexuality through the history of mankind has gone down into ruin. That's the historical record." Surely he must mean ancient Egypt, and the Romans and the Greeks, which all "embraced" same-sex relationships to some degree? And by that logic, any country that embraced, say, agriculture, technology, and art all went down in ruin, so PLEASE KNOCK THAT OFF, America.

Blog Color Changes

In solidarity with the anti- Ahmadinejad and anti-dictatorship protesters in Iran I have changed some of the colors on the blog to green. Where the protests will lead no one knows, but one can only hope that the outcome will be an overthrow of the theocratic dictatorship and a renewed move to modernity.

*

I also hope that watching the protests and desire for democracy among younger Iranians will help Americans realize that Ahmadinejad and his fellow thugs do not represent the hearts and minds of many, many Iranians.

*

Moreover, too often Americans forget that Iran (formerly Persia) is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC. A series of four dynasties governed Iran for more than 1000 years with high cultural advances - more than three times the duration of the United States. When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, the culture of the Persians made the Greeks look like barbarians.

Thursday Male Beauty

PFAW Calls Out Obama on DOMA and LGBT Rights

People For the American Way ("PFAW") founded by Norman Lear is dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American: Equality. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right to seek justice in a court of law. The right to cast a vote that counts. One of the things PTAW does is work to counter Christianists and their efforts to impose their perverted version of Christianity on all Americans. Through its Right Wing Watch blog a spotlight is maintained on the machinations of the Christianists and the anti-freedom allies. Yesterday, PFAW called out President Obama on the crumbs he has thrown to some LGBT couples while continuing to fail to deliver on his campaign promises:

*

Tonight, President Obama announced that he is moving administratively to provide some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. This is a very small step in the right direction, but it's really just a token, and tokens are no longer enough. What stands in the way of real progress for all same-sex couples is DOMA, which denies the most important benefits -- healthcare, retirement, health insurance and more -- to anyone but "spouses" under DOMA's definition of marriage (ie. married heterosexual couples).

*
And sadly, the administration has not lived up to the president's earlier calls to repeal DOMA. On Friday, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in which it went far above and beyond simply defending DOMA as a federal policy against a court challenge. The brief cited laws regarding incest ... it called DOMA a policy of government "neutrality" (which it is clearly anything but) ... and it justified the government's continued discrimination on the basis that it's cheaper than expanding fundamental rights and protections.

*
There is no defense for the Defense of Marriage Act. Help spread the word that less unequal is still unequal -- help get others to sign the petition at DumpDoma.com.

*

If you have not done so, please sign the petition and make your thoughts heard.

GOP Silence on Ensign's Affair

In typical hypocritical fashion, members of the self-styled "party of family values" have remained pretty much silent about the confession of one of their U.S. Senators - John Ensign pictured at left - who was doing one of his staff members for the better part of a year. What is particularly telling is that the latest GOP adulterer in the past condemned Bill Clinton for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Ensign joins the ranks of family values frauds like David "I love Prostitutes" Vitter. Imagine the GOP (and Christianist) outcry if the adulterer had been a Democrat. Dana Milbank has a column in the Washington Post that looks at this typical GOP conduct. Here are some highlights:

*

As newly confessed adulterer John Ensign went to ground in Las Vegas yesterday, his Senate Republican colleagues here in Washington reprised a familiar ritual: averting their gaze.

*

"It would be intellectually dishonest for me to comment on it," declared Chuck Grassley of Iowa, pausing on his way to lunch with GOP colleagues. "I'm late," announced David Vitter of Louisiana, brushing past a knot of reporters. "I'm not going to say anything," vowed Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican, pausing briefly beneath a portrait of John C. Calhoun. "Byyye!" he called, waving back at his questioners as he walked into lunch.

*

It was, as Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas artfully put it, "a no-comment day." Members of the Senate GOP caucus are becoming quite expert at the procedure, having had practice tamping down previous indiscretions by Vitter (D.C. Madam), Ted Stevens (shiatsu massage lounger) and Larry Craig (Minneapolis airport). Ensign faces an additional hurdle: His moral politics (he led the push to drum Craig out of the chamber, calling his behavior "embarrassing for the Senate") left him open to charges of hypocrisy.

*

Ensign's affair dealt a double blow to Republicans: He wouldn't be around to lead the party in the annual Congressional Baseball Game, scheduled for last night, and he wouldn't be able to serve as a member of Senate GOP leadership anymore. "He's already resigned from leadership," Jim Bunning of Kentucky growled as he walked into the lunch meeting. This turned out to be a scoop: An official announcement followed a few minutes later.

Christianists Foaming At Mouth Over Obama Gay Rights Memo

All too predicatbly the Christianists and professional Christian crowd are hyperventilating over Obama's signing of his memorandum today that extends a handful of legal rights and benefits to LGBT federal employers and their families. The professional whiners have their panties in a major knot and are bloviating that this grant of a handful of rights/benefits approximates marriage. The charge is ridiculous and disingenuous, but would one expect anything less from these folk? A handful of rights versus some 1000+ rights/benefits. Pretty poor approximation to marriage if you ask me. Here are some highlights from U.S. News & World Report:

*

Conservative Christian groups criticizing the president's memorandum extending certain benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees are alleging that the president is approximating the benefits of marriage —that he's basically creating "marriage light." It's an interesting line of argument because polls show that most Americans support benefits for gay partners but oppose gay marriage.

*

Here's a statement today from Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright: "Barack Obama's order...attempts to elevate relationships outside of marriage as if they are the same as marriage. Marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, families, and society that cannot be replicated by any other living arrangements. Marriage helps nurture children and reduces social and financial costs to society by promoting healthy behavior. Federal funds should not be a political tool to elevate partner arrangements to be treated similar to marriage."

*

And here's a statement from Family Research Council President Tony Perkins making a similar marriage-based argument against Obama's executive memorandum: President Obama's expected Executive Order extending benefits to homosexual partners appears to be a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and clearly violates the spirit of the federal law which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. In 1996, DOMA passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate and was then signed by President Clinton.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Message to Obama: We Supported You. Time to Live up to Your Promises

John Aravosis of America Blog has a column over at Salon that looks at the issue addressed in my last post. I haven't minced my words on my frustration with Obama - neither has John. Here are some highlights:

*

Team Obama keeps telling lesbian and gay Americans like me to be patient. If we just wait a little longer, administration officials whisper to us lovingly (and out of earshot of the media), after the White House finishes with healthcare reform and getting the troops out of Iraq, your time will come. In the meantime, cheer up -- we put a gay band in the inaugural parade!

*

Everyone loves a parade, but we don't like being betrayed. And while gay and lesbian Americans were initially willing to cut our new president some slack, the president's now-clear reticence to follow through on even one of his many campaign promises to the gay community has put the Democratic Party on the precipice of an ugly and very public divorce with this once-solid constituency.

*

But a funny thing happened on the way to equality. Rather than clouds opening up and angels descending from on high, Barack Obama became president and things never got better for the gays. In fact, they got decidedly worse.

*

The president would like us to believe that he's awfully busy being president, and if we only wait a little while longer, we'll get our rights. Of course, the president isn't too busy to stab the community in the back by continuing the military discharges, defending DOMA, and comparing us to pedophiles. (On Wednesday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs was given a chance to repudiate the DOMA brief's language about incest and pedophilia and would not.)

Obama Measures Falls Short

In a possible effort to try to avoid an embarrassing melt down at a LGBT fundraiser dinner for the DNC President Obama signed a memorandum to extend limited benefits to LGBT federal employees and their partners. While a step in the right direction, it is merely a measly crumb compared to candidate Obama's lofty campaign promises. No matter what he does after the fact, the DOJ brief in support of DOMA pretty much has expressed what the Obama administration truly thinks of LGBT Americans: our marriages are equivalent to incest. Rightly so, the anti-Obama and anti-DNC fall out continues to unfold. Here's one example via the InsiderOut blog group that I belong to:

:

Bruce Bastian, a gay businessman and prominent donor who lives in Utah and is on the list of special invitees, not only said he no longer plans to attend the fundraiser, but also that he no longer plans to donate to the Democratic Party as a whole. “I will continue to support certain congressmen, congresswomen and senators whom I believe will continue to fight for our rights, but I don’t think blanket donations to the Democratic Party right now are justified, at least not in my book,” he said.

*
Bastian, a major donor to many LGBT groups, said he sent an e-mail to the DNC on Wednesday saying he wouldn’t attend the event “because of the remarks on DOMA.” He found the filing “very offensive.” “The administration has said they have to support the federal government’s stance,” he said. “But in the brief, they go way beyond where they need to go to just defend DOMA. They basically go to terminology and language that you would expect from the Bush administration, not the Obama administration.”

*
Bastian said the brief was the “tipping point” for him in his perception for how the Democratic Party supports LGBT issues. “The LGBT community raised a lot of money in support for Obama, and, I think he has to have the courage — well, not just him — but, I think the Democratic Party now has to have the courage to fight back, and when they do, they’ll have my support,” he said. Bastian said he would change his mind on the donations and his attendance if there were action on passing hate crimes legislation in the Senate and movement to repeal DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

*

Bastian is but one of many prominent LGBT political donors who have decided to opt out of attending the big DNC fundraiser on June 25, 2009. I applaud these principled decisions and believe that a boycott of the fundraiser is the proper course of action. Obama and the Democrat Party need to be shown that they cannot depend on LGBT support and money if they refuse to deliver on LGBT rights initiatives. Here are highlights from America Blog on this point:

*

I contacted top gay blogger Andy Towle today to ask if he'd be attending the big gay fundraiser the DNC was holding later this month with VP Biden as the special guest. Andy was on a list I'd seen of already committed attendees. Andy told me that he had already contacted the DNC to say that he wouldn't be attending at this time (yet another reason we like Andy and his blog). The DNC had planned to raise a lot of money from gay A-listers by coinciding this fundraiser with the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Instead, the DNC may be about to witness Stonewall 2.0.

*

Andy's news comes on the heel of word that veteran gay advocate, and longtime friend of Bill Clinton, David Mixner is pulling out the fundraiser as well. David wrote one hell of an essay this weekend about the hateful DOMA brief the Obama administration submitted late Thursday night.

*

Here is a very long excerpt from David's essay: You fully need to understand the ramifications of this brief: it undercuts every conceivable argument that the LGBT community would use to fight for the repeal of DOMA. Right-wing nut cases can now just simply quote horrible stuff from this hateful brief and proclaim loudly it was filed by the Obama Justice Department. The President and his team have not only undercut this community but have damaged his own ability to repeal this hideous law given to us by President Clinton. With Democratic friends like these, God helps us.

*

President Obama, even Dick Cheney is for marriage equality. Please don't try to placate us with actions already taken 16 years ago by President Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be able to help you find the way since she has already written a policy for your approval ending discrimination in her agency. This community is no longer interested in hearing one more time your personal beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. We want you to rise above your own beliefs and hear you articulate a powerful vision of full equality for LGBT Americans.

*

As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words and at this point in time the Obama administration's actions in supporting DOMA tell us all we need to know.

Divorce Wars - Part 4

I survived today in court - one hearing was continued because the judge recused herself (perhaps because she realizes that these matters may be appealed and she has made mistakes in prior hearings) and in the other the outcome was reasonable and reflected my financial reality. The former wife, in short, did not get what she wanted and merely wasted more money on attorneys fees. I have always wanted to sit down and try to work things out but it takes two to tango as they say. My offer to talk stands but I'm not holding my breath that it will be accepted.

*

As always the boyfriend and my office manager were wonderfully supportive even thought they did not end up having to testify. I am blessed to have them and my young paralegal in my life - they are loyal, caring and wonderful.

*

Sunday is Father's Day and my youngest daughter is coming over to hang out with us during the afternoon and then stay for dinner. She is another mainstay in my life and her love and support throughout the divorce wars nightmare has meant more to me than she will ever know. She is a very special and amazing gift from God to me.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Divorce Wars - Part 3

I will not be doing my usual posting tomorrow/this morning because I need to leave early for yet another show cause hearing brought by the former wife (and in my opinion her unethical attorney) in her apparent quest to either drive me to suicide or perhaps get my mother to advance funds to pay her off and get her out of my life. I will confess that the new meds are helping some and I'm not on the verge - at least yet - of checking myself into a inpatient facility as I thought might well be the case a week or so ago. I WILL be dosed up with meds for the hearing tomorrow.

*

Fortunately, the boyfriend - pictured with me at left at a friend's retirement party last weekend - has been wonderfully supportive and will be in court with me tomorrow for moral support as well as a possible witness on various issues. I am truly blessed to have him in my life. hope and pray that the Court will see through the former wife's harassment tactics and send her and her attorney packing.

*

FYI - this post has been published via delayed publishing options.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Children Can Meet Dad’s Gay Friends

The Georgia Supreme Court has reversed a ruling by a homophobic lower court judge who had forbidden a gay father to allow his children to be around any of his gay and lesbian friends. This is a major deal simply because time and time again in divorces the straight parent tries to depict the LGBT parent as a sexual pervert and either (a) restrict visitation or (b) take custody from the LGBT parent. Just recently I spoke with a gay man who was experiencing this nightmare in front of a local Circuit Court judge. Ironically, the - in my opinion - sleazy attorney for the wife advertises himself as "gay friendly" even though he obviously is not. Here are some highlights from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution:

*

The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday threw out a judge’s order that prohibited children in a divorce case from having any contact with their father’s gay and lesbian friends. The ruling was hailed by gay rights groups who said the decision focuses on the needs of children instead of perpetuating a stigma on the basis of sexual orientation. The state high court’s decision overturned Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards’ blanket prohibition against exposing the children to their father’s gay partners and friends.

*

“Such an arbitrary classification based on sexual orientation flies in the face of our public policy that encourages divorced parents to participate in the raising of their children,” Justice Robert Benham wrote. The Fayette County judge’s prohibition “assumes, without evidentiary support, that the children will suffer harm from any such contact,” Benham wrote. But there is no evidence that any member of the gay and lesbian community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by being exposed to members of that community, he said.

*
The ruling stems from the 2007 divorce of Eric Duane Mongerson and Sandy Kay Ehlers Mongerson, who had been married 21 years and had four children. The visitation order prohibited the three youngest children, whose ages ranged from 8 to 16 at the time, from being in contact with their father’s gay and lesbian friends. The oldest child was already an adult.

*

Beth Littrell, staff attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Atlanta, said the visitation order was the most sweeping of its kind she had seen in Georgia. “Placing a blanket ban on children’s association with gay people not only hurts this father’s relationship with his children, it is blatant discrimination,” Littrell said. “The court has done the right thing today by focusing on the needs of the children instead of perpetuating stigma on the basis of sexual orientation.” The ruling, she added, ensures that visitation decisions are “not based on the prejudices of individual judges.”

Another "Family Values" Republican Admits to Sexual Affair

I am continually baffled by the way some of the loudest anti-gay members of the GOP either are secretly seeking gay sex on the side like Ed Schrock or having affairs and cheating on their wives with other women. The latest case in point is Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada (pictured at left) who wants to protect marriage from us gays, but has no problem trashing his marital vows for another women. No doubt he will make a tearful act of contrition and the sheeple of the Christianist far right will give him a free pass. The hypocrisy is simply mind boggling and note how the cuckolded wife takes the guy back. Here are some highlights from CNN:

*

Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada Tuesday admitted an extramarital affair with a woman who had worked for him. Ensign would not identify the woman, but said both she and her husband had been "close friends." Her husband, he said, also worked for him. "Last year I had an affair," the senator told reporters outside his office in Las Vegas. "I violated the vows of marriage. It's absolutely the worse thing I've done in my life."

*

The senator's office also released a statement from Ensign's wife, saying, "Since we found out last year we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation. This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends our marriage has become stronger. I love my husband."

*
Ensign's spokesman, Tory Mazzola, told CNN that Ensign and a campaign staff member carried on the affair from December 2007 through August 2008. Her husband was an official Senate staff member for the senator.

Tuesday Male Beauty

HRC Belatedly Blasts Obama

In my view too many of the major LGBT Rights organizations approach making demands of our elected politicians like frightened children who fear reprimand and as a result beg for crumbs rather than upset those that WE helped elect. The sad reality is that if LGBT Americans patiently wait for elected officials to dole out equality, we will never secure full equality under the civil laws. And why should politicians do anything for us if we continue to give our money and talents to them even as they more or less thumb their noses at us? Maybe, just maybe, the Obama DOJ brief supporting DOMA has finally been enough of a slap in the face to wake our supposed leaders up to the fact that playing nice often gets one nothing in politics. I am happy that HRC is finally stirring, but we will have to wait and see if it continues. Here are highlights from HRC's letter to Obama, the full text of which can be found here:

*

Dear Mr. President: . . . Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

*

Reading the brief, one is told again and again that same-sex couples are so unlike different-sex couples that unequal treatment makes sense. But the government doesn’t say what makes us different, or unequal, only that our marriages are “new.” The fact that same-sex couples were denied equal rights until recently does not justify denying them now.

*

The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else’s marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors’ marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged. In other words, the brief does not even attempt to explain how DOMA is related to any interest, but rather accepts that it is constitutional to attempt to legislate our families out of existence.

*

DOMA is not “neutral” . . . It is not a “neutral” policy toward the minor child of a same-sex couple, who is denied thousands of dollars of surviving mother’s or father’s benefits because his parents are not “spouses” under Social Security law. Exclusion is not neutrality.

*

I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones. . . . If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no. We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.

*

The time for playing nice is long past. We need to make it very clear to Obama and Congressional Democrats that we will no longer quietly remain second class citizens in our own country as a result of what is in reality religious based discrimination which is after all illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

More Monday Male Beauty

How to Setup a Proxy for Iran Citizens

My thoughts continue to go out to the brave opponents of the Islamic dictators in Iran. As Andrew Sullivan has reported for several days now, many Iranian protesters are using twitter to get news out as to what is happening in Iran. The problem is that the Islamic dictatorship may well seek to shut down Internet access and shut off the news outflow. Here are the points being circulated by the opposition to the mullah's regime via Andrew's blog which I am sure are not welcomed by Ahmadinejad:

*

This list was being passed around among the resistance in Iran today:

*

1. Remove Khamenei from supreme leader because he doesn't qualify as a fair supreme leader

*

2. Remove Ahmadinejad from president because he took it forcefully and unlawfully

*

3. Put Ayatollah Montazeri as supreme leader until a review group for the ghanooneh asasi ( "constitution" ) is set up

*

4. Recognize Mousavi as the official president

*

5. A goverment by Mousavi and start a reform of the constitution

*

6. Free all political prisoners without any ifs ands or buts, right away

*

7. Call off any secret organization such as "gasht ershad"

*

Obsidian Wings has more on this issue - some of which is technically way over my head when in comes to computer savvy. If this information is correct and one has the know how, it is possible to set up proxies to help by pass Iranian restrictions. Here's an overview:

*

From my tentative understanding, Iran's network is a lot like China's in that it's very centralized. This post explains (and illustrates) that the Iranian Internet traffic passes through a centralized bottleneck. (Imagine if the Holland Tunnel were the only way into Manhattan). With this bottleneck in place, it's easy to filter traffic. Just like the post office could theoretically block every envelope going to San Francisco, Iran can block packets going to the IP address for "Facebook" or "Twitter." (Great NYT article on these basics here).

*
So here's where "proxies" come in (and techies, please help me out here if my understanding is off). Let's say you want to send a letter to San Francisco, but the post office doesn't allow it. Well, if you know that some dude in Kansas would forward your letter on to San Francisco, then you could go ahead and mail your SF-bound letter, but it would appear to the post office like it's going to Kansas.

*
So that's how tweets are getting through. They're essentially being sent to "middlemen" proxy servers -- which, in turn, allows the information to pass "in disguise" through the filter. It's like a digital Underground Railroad. (Great overview of proxies and services like Tor here).

*

For those with the technical know how, instructions on how to set up a proxy can be found here. I admit that it is beyond my capabilities. Without a simple platform like Blogger, this blog would not exist.

Employee Reprimanded For Facebook Post

The question has been posed as to where exactly do our personal social media rights stand in light of our employer’s right and/or desire to know and their ability to dictate what goes on our personal Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, or YouTube accounts accessed on our own private personal time. The question is relevant because many employers – particularly in states like Virginia which is an employment at will state where employees can be fired for no reason at all – need little or no justification to fire an employee as long as it doesn’t run afoul of prohibitions against discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other statutory protected class. A recent event brings this issue into focus. In this instance an Associated Press reporter was reprimanded over an innocuous comment on his Facebook page. Fortunately, as a union member, his union has come to his defense. Most of us do not have that luxury in an increasingly non-unionized work force.
*
True, all of us as American citizens have our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This protection does not, however, extend to private employers where contract rights govern relationships as opposed to prohibitions against government actions to restrict speech. While censoring employees’ rights to freedom of speech is in my view morally wrong, the reality is that this type of behavior happens virtually every day. In my own case, a letter to the editor in opposition to anti-gay legislation in 2004 likely set the stage for my being forced out of a law firm where the powers that be were more worried about not offending ultra conservative clients than the rights of their employees as citizens of an allegedly free country. Or the rights of LGBT citizens.
*
The consequence is that employees need to use caution in what they post and how much they reveal. Unless you are self-employed or own your own business, it’s important to know the mindset of your employer and act accordingly assuming that anything you write may well be seen by your employer. I am not arguing that any of this is right, but it is a legal reality. Here are some highlights from Wired.com on the AP reporter case and others like it:
*
Richard Richtmyer, a Philadelphia-based newsman, set off Tuesday’s tempest with a seemingly harmless comment posted to his Facebook profile late last month criticizing the executive management of newspaper publisher McClatchy, whose stock plummeted following a 2006 acquisition of San Jose-based Knight Ridder. “It seems like the ones who orchestrated the whole mess should be losing their jobs or getting pushed into smaller quarters,” Richtmyer wrote on May 28. “But they aren’t.”
*
McClatchy, like countless other newspaper publishers, happens to be a member of the AP’s newsgathering cooperative. Had the comment been uttered in real life, it likely would have dissipated into the rank air of a Philly journo bar. But Richtmyer had some 51 AP colleagues as Facebook friends, some of them higher up in the AP food chain. One turned out to be a “mole” — Richtmyer’s description — and the reporter was given a firm talking-to by AP management, who put a reprimand letter in his employment file.
*
The minidrama is an increasingly familiar one as companies and workers navigate the landscape defined by sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Firings and reprimands over postings to social networking sites have become commonplace over the last year.
*
A stadium employee with the Philadelphia Eagles was fired in March after a Facebook post calling the team “retarded” for trading a star player. A North Carolina teacher was suspended in November for posting on Facebook, “I hate my students.” Three Harrison, New York, police officers were suspended in February after making untoward Facebook comments about their mayor.
*
And two New Jersey restaurant workers are now suing their former boss after they were fired for their rumblings about the restaurant management on MySpace. The federal suit accuses the manager of logging onto the online discussion using another employee’s credentials.
*

Private-sector workers have little, if any, protection from being fired or reprimanded for what they say online or off, said Wendy Seltzer, a First Amendment lawyer at American University. “If you put it onto a Twitter stream or a Facebook page, if they get word of that, they can fire you,” Seltzer said. “Electronic communications are more persistent, and more likely to find their way into the boss’ hands.”

*
Federal employees, she said, generally have a First Amendment protection against being fired for their speech, unless it “impedes the ability to do the job,” Seltzer said.

*

As is often the case with the law, what is legally permissible and what is morally right are two different things. Employees need to remember this unfortunate reality.