Joel Burns Named Finalist For "Texan of the Year"

At the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce ("NGLCC") last month I had the privilege of meeting and speaking with Fort Worth, Texas, City Councilman Joel Burns (pictured at left). He is an amazing individual (and taller and cuter in person than on video and photos) and I continue to feel shudders run through me when I think of his amazing statement during an open session of Fort Worth city council about his own life and the fact that it can get better. The You Tube video of his heartfelt and moving statement went viral and cannot but have touched many hearts and minds - both gay and straight. Obviously, Joel Burns took a risk politically when he made his public statement but sometimes coming out and live your life proudly can and does create change. Now, Joel Burns has made the list of finalists for "Texan of the Year" and the Dallas Morning News has an editorial on this notable achievement. Congratulations to Joel Burns! Here are highlights from the Dallas Morning News editorial:
*
Joel Burns was the picture of courage. Fort Worth's openly gay city council member had privately carried the pain of anti-gay bullying he suffered while growing up in nearby Crowley. Even his parents didn't know the depths of his despair – until they found out in a very public way this fall.
*
In the opening moments of a City Council meeting, Burns used his microphone to reflect on a half-dozen teenagers who ended their lives rather than endure another minute of harassment. And he tearfully talked about his torment. "When someone like him who is so laid back speaks out so passionately, you know it really matters to him," said state Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth.
*
Burns' appeal has inspired anti-bullying legislation in Texas, an outgrowth that could well save young lives. Burns has appeared on national and international radio and TV shows and received thousands of supportive e-mails and voicemails. Some are emotional and graphic testimonies from youngsters who said they were on the verge of suicide until they heard Burns speak. For his uncommon, selfless courage to spare others, Burns is a finalist for 2010 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.
*
Inspired by Burns, [Senator Wendy] Davis filed a bill to require Texas school districts to combat all forms of bullying and report annually the number and whether they were based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Districts would be required to educate employees, students and parents on the seriousness of all forms of bullying. "It's not children who are responsible for ending bullying in the schools," Burns says. "It is the responsibility of teachers, parents, administrators and our legislators."
*
"It's been heartening and emotional getting to talk to people all over the country about bullying experiences," Burns says. "And I do believe it gets better. For the teenager who was planning to take his life, just waking up the next day is better."

Tuesday Male Beauty

The Real Reason Christians (and Others) Get So Crazy About Gays

John Shore has a piece at Huffington Post which while tongue in cheek in someways looks at the bizarre emotions gays evoke in some and makes the case that power, not true religious belief that motivates the homophobes - that and their own psychological insecurities. He maintains that the Bible is a convenient crutch when an excuse is needed, but the quest for a sense of power - and money in the case of members of the whore-like professional Christian set such as James Dobson - is the true driving force. The flip side is that men and women who are secure in their own sexuality and sense of who they are don't get all crazed and hysterical over the issue of gays. Closet cases like Robert Knight and Peter LaBarbera truly take the crazy right off the charts, while those comfortable with themselves do not. Here are some column highlights:
*
The reason is power. It's all about power. The problem Christians and others have with homosexuality isn't about sex. Nobody cares that much about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Sure, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is bad. And of course that matters. As a Christian, what the Bible says certainly matters to me. But the Bible also says that slavery is good, and that women shouldn't speak in church, and that Christians should never eat shellfish, and on and on an on. We've long ago made our peace with the idea that sometimes we have to modify our understanding of Biblical texts---especially when (as is true with the Pauline proscriptions of homosexuality), there are sound reasons to question the way the text has been translated.
*
What fuels the fiery hatred that so many Christians and others harbor for gays can't be explained by pointing to the Bible alone. Clearly something more visceral is going on with that.
*
When you hear the word homosexual, what's the first thing that comes to mind? A gay man. It's always a gay man. It's gay men that get people out on the street waving signs and screaming. It's gay men about which people tend to get so emotional; in the main, that's what all the hate and anger is about.
*
Why are we, both personally and societally, as reactive to gay men as we are? What is it about them that we hate so much? And the answer to that question is simple: they threaten the traditional power base of men. Here's the basic run of it inside a man's brain/heart/subconscious: I may not be much. But I'm a man. And that entitles me to a lot.
*
[T]wo men together? Yikes. That's a problem for me. That's when all the walls in my world begin to crumble. Each of those men is my equal, my peer; they're my kind. If it's okay for them to be romantic with each other, then, for me, everything gets upended. [Oh, will you just stop already?!] Because where the heck does that leave me?
*
Today, the ground beneath the personal politics and power of gender is shaking like a California earthquake. And grabbing onto your Bible won't stop that movement. Nothing can. Men are going to kiss men. And that will always seem intensely weird to straight people---just like men and women kissing will always seem intensely weird to gay people. It's a new world, y'all. And it's time to be brave about it.

Sex and the Biblical Scholar

I have long made a point of the hypocrisy and total intellectual dishonesty of fundamental Christians who selectively pick and choose which Bible passages receive "inerrant" treatment and which ones are conveniently ignored and/or flouted daily. Inerrancy is an all or nothing proposition and if fundamentalists had a shred of honesty and integrity, they'd be making huge changes in their own lives (they have on average the highest divorce rate, highest unwed pregnancy rate, and lowest educational levels) as opposed to worrying about the sexual activities of others. Now a noted Biblical scholar, Michael Coogan, has a new book out that takes the "one from column A and one from column B" fundamentalists to task. The Guardian has a book review and here are some highlights:
*
Michael Coogan is one of America’s foremost biblical scholars, and the problem with his elegant little book is that Christian fundamentalists are simply going to ignore it. The fact that he went to Harvard is not likely to endear him to the Sarah Palins of this world , and while he wears his learning lightly, having any learning at all is an automatic black mark in large swaths of the hinterland.
*
For his part, Coogan makes it very clear that he has grown weary of turning the other cheek. His message to other biblical scholars is that they should take the battle to the enemy, the enemy being the “amateurs, the hyperpious and crazies” who would impose their understanding of the Bible on the rest of us.
*
What makes Coogan’s critique so devastating is that he knows the Bible inside out – not just its many books, but also all the other books that for one reason or another never made it into the canon. Add to this his complete mastery of the languages in which the Bible was written and you start to appreciate that most of what passes for exegesis is simply cherry-picking, if not outright wishful thinking. Marriage is perhaps the best example.
*
A very strong case (Coogan’s) can be made for saying that what the Bible actually teaches is that marriage is the union of one man and an indefinite number of women. Lamech had two wives. Abraham had three, Jacob four, and his brother Esau five. Nobody knows how many wives Gideon had, but between them they are supposed to have produced 70 sons.
*
Coogan’s point is a basic one: If you are a Christian fundamentalist and believe that every word of the Bible is literally true, you don’t get to pick and choose.
*
Coogan’s advice is that you ask yourself: What would Jesus do? This puts it too crudely, for he never actually uses the phrase, but as much is implied when he urges the reader to be guided by the spirit rather than the letter of the Bible. Or as Coogan himself puts it, “How – and even if – a particular text speaks to an individual or community in the present must be determined by testing it with the touchstone of fair and equal treatment of the neighbour, as seen in the strikingly similar sayings of Hillel [the Elder] and Jesus.”
*
A century and a half later, and we’re still using the Bible to argue the pros and cons of basic human rights. But Michael Coogan’s excellent book is a reminder that the Bible cuts both ways, and that in the right hands it might once again become a force for positive social change.

Decorated Veterans Sue Over Ddon't Ask' Discharges

With the legislative repeal of DADT apparently going nowhere other than a slow death in the U.S. Senate, three decorated veterans discharged under DADT have filed suit in federal court seeking reinstatement under the so-called Whitt standard formulated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts do seem to be the only forum in which the irrational and discriminatory purpose of DADT isn't upheld by political games and the bigotry of individuals like John "McSenile" McCain or the spinelessness of the Liar-in-Chief. The suit was filed on behalf of Air Force veterans Michael D. Almy and Anthony J. Loverde, and former Navy Petty Officer Jason D. Knight, and aims to show that their discharges harmed the military as opposed to protecting it. Here are highlights from the Los Angeles Times:
*
Three decorated military veterans discharged because they are gay filed suit Monday in San Francisco seeking reinstatement and another federal court judgment that the Pentagon's ban on openly gay and lesbian personnel in the military is unconstitutional.
*
The lawsuit should serve as "a shot across the bow" to put Congress on notice that if lawmakers fail to repeal the law, those who oppose it will turn to the courts for relief, said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
*
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based nonprofit committed to ending "don't ask, don't tell," and the law firm of Morrison & Foerster filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of three men "who want nothing more than to put their uniforms on and get back overseas to serve their country," said M. Andrew Woodmansee of the law firm's San Diego office.
*
The suit was filed on behalf of Air Force veterans Michael D. Almy and Anthony J. Loverde, and former Navy Petty Officer Jason D. Knight. All three had been awarded numerous medals and commendations for their service before they were discharged.

More Monday Male Beauty

Fears of American Decline Are Fueling the Tea Party

One of the forces motivating the hysteria of the Tea Party - other than the latent racism and hatred of anyone and everyone who the Tea Party set deems as "other" - is the fixation that America is in decline. The truth, of course, is that the nation IS in decline. The irony, however, is that it Republican policies more so than Democrat policies that have helped fuel the decline: e.g., needless wars that have blown up the deficit, lax financial markets regulation that helped set the stage for the financial market meltdown - the list goes on and on. Yet the Tea Party loons flock to support the Republicans who have overseen the last decade of accelerating decline. E. J. Dionne has a column in the Washington Post looks at the phenomenon and questions whether or not the Liar-in-Chief can turn the downward slide around. Personally, my vote is a resounding no, since leadership would be required on Obama's part and we've seen that he not only isn't a leader but also lacks any kind of spine whatsoever. Here are highlights from Dionne's column:
*
The current declinist sentiment arises from a widespread sense that in the first decade of the new millennium, our country squandered its international advantages, degraded its power with a long and unnecessary engagement in Iraq, wrecked the federal government's finances - and then saw its economy devastated by the worst financial crisis in 80 years. All this happened as China especially but also India began to challenge American preeminence. Americans feel something is badly wrong, and they are fully justified in their alarm.
*
[T]he rise of right-wing nationalist movements - the Tea Party is as much about an assertive nationalism as it is about liberty - speaks to the country's longing for reassurance that it can maintain its leading position in the world. So does the insistent talk of his potential Republican rivals about America as an exceptional nation.
*
Obama sprinkles his rhetoric with talk about competing and winning in the 21st century, and he often suggests that China is taking initiatives (in energy, mass transit and education, for example) that we are not. What's lacking is a coherent call for reform and restoration that is unapologetically patriotic and challenging.
*
Obama should be even more insistent on using the contest with China as a prod, much as John F. Kennedy used competition with the Soviet Union to get the country moving again domestically as well as overseas. There are more important priorities than preserving low tax rates for rich people, larger strategic concerns than Iraq or even Afghanistan, and more compelling political purposes than rote attacks on government or a fear of new immigrants, or Islam, or our diversity as a nation. And we will all be in this effort together only if all of our citizens know they will have an opportunity to share in a resurgent America's success. For Obama, political renewal requires a bold and persistent campaign for national renewal.

Republican Appointed Federal Judge Strikes Down Portion of Health Care Reform

Actually, it's not a surprise that U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson (pictured at left), a Chimperator Bush appointee, found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance. You see, Hudson owns a piece of a GOP consulting firm which - surprise, surprise - has been advocating against and working for Republicans who oppose the health care reforms. Here's a brief taste from Newser:
*
According to financial disclosure forms spotted first by the Huffington Post and then Gawker, Hudson has made between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends since 2003 from shares of Campaign Solutions, a firm that’s worked for anti-Obamacare crusaders like Michele Bachmann, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, and John McCain.
*
It gets worse: Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who brought the suit Hudson ruled on today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered this year. But Campaign Solutions maintains that that doesn't amount to a conflict of interest because Hudson was an investor long before George W. Bush appointed him to the bench, . . .
*
Corruption and conflict of interest in Virginia? Why am I not shocked! And, of course, Ken Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, Virginia's village idiot, is rejoicing since he knows the ruling will have the fundies singing his praises when they're not busy drinking laced Kool-Aid. The Washington Post has more details on Hudson's ruling which will allow the health care reform measures to stand pending an appeal. Personally, I have always favored a public option as opposed to the forced enrollment provision that is the subject of today's ruling. Here are details from the Post story:
*
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation's sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama's signature domestic initiative.
*
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance. In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.
*
Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014.
*
The ruling comes in a case filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), who said he was defending a new state statute that made it illegal to require people to carry health insurance in Virginia.
*
The Virginia suit is one of 25 legal challenges to the federal law wending their way through the federal courts across the country. In two other lawsuits, judges sitting in Michigan and Lynchburg, Va., have found that the same provision of the law passed legal muster. A third judge in Florida is also weighing constitutionality of the individual mandate in a suit jointly filed by 20 states.
*
The statute's constitutionality will ultimately be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have been very critical of the White House and it's lack of engagement on getting DADT repealed. Frankly, I have come to wonder whether or not Obama, a/k/a the Liar-in-Chief, gives a flip one way or the other if DADT is repealed or not. The cartoon above seems to sum up the situation and the Liar-in-Chief's attitude to folks like me in the LGBT community - especially in light of this statement today by Senator Carl Levin on C-SPAN today:

*

"The way I think the President needs to fight is to say that he is going to use all of the power he has of a bully pulpit and urge the Senate to stay in, right up to New Years….that’s the problem that I don’t see that kind of a willingness to fight that hard, where he will take that kind of a position and that’s what’s necessary. The Senate and the House, these are tests of wills."

*

When not voting or contributing money, in Obama's view, LGBT Americans belong under the bus. I am way past disgusted with the Liar-in-Chief.

Homeownership Falls as People Move Back in With Family

This chart pretty much sums up what has happened in the current economy and just how many of the younger generations have been closed out of the housing market. I continue to maintain that a stable housing market that is within reach of those with decent employment is key to an economic recovery - and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Last months sales were down 30% from a year earlier - and last years figures were horrible. Meanwhile, foreclosures continue to put downward pressure on home prices in many markets.