In which I take on lesbians on the Supreme Court, school a right-winger on sodomy, and further explain (and expand) my Zombie Invasion Dream Team

So there's been a lot of speculation over whom Obama is going to pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. Some have even speculated that Obama may name a lesbian to the bench.

As one might imagine, the prospect of a lesbian on the Supreme Court does not sit well with a certain segment of the U.S. population. This article, from the website Renew America (an organization that, on its About Us page, strenuously refers to itself as both nonpartisan and nondenominational... and then, four sentences later, mentions its mission of preserving biblical principles in America... and three sentences after that, refers to itself as a Christian website that promotes "moral conservatism"... so, they're either full of shit or having an identity crisis. I'll let you pick), is entitled "Virtually impossible for open lesbian to make a good Supreme Court justice."

How much damage can one lesbian do? Glad you asked. Evidently, an LGBT Supreme Court nominee (and the fact that some conservatives, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, have indicated that a person's sexual orientation maybe shouldn't be an automatic reason for disqualification from consideration) "likely would bring to an abrupt end any hope that the United States can continue to have laws based on moral standards and concepts."

Wow. That's... horrific, right? The U.S. will fall into complete anarchy should Obama choose to even nominate (not get confirmed... just nominate) a gay. Evidently, any and all morality will "abruptly" disappear, laws will be rendered meaningless, and wild packs of homosexuals will roam the streets, intent on sodomizing each other in front of as many small children as possible.

Speaking of sodomy, here's more, from the same article: "An open lesbian has obviously resolved the ethical questions about sexuality in favor of the legitimacy of aberrant sexual behavior, in favor of what historically has been known in U.S. law as an "infamous crime against nature."" A couple of things here. First, it seems awfully hypocritical to chastise someone for resolving the "ethical questions about sexuality," and then, in your next breath, call gay lovin' "aberrant sexual behavior"... as that would seem to indicate that you, as well, have resolved such questions, though in a slightly more bigoted way. Second, in re: the implication that lesbianism has historically been known as a crime against nature...

Actually, for much of their history, sodomy laws (which originated in England and were transported to the colonies by the Puritans), only referred to two acts: anal intercourse (in both hetero and homo forms) and bestiality. Sex acts between two women? Nope! Why is that? Well, from the good people at sodomylaws.org: "Sex between women was viewed as an oxymoron. In a case from Scotland, dating to 1811, the House of Lords decided, regarding a charge of cunnilingus between two women, "the crime here alleged has no existence.""

Plus, there was existing legal precedent in the U.S. that "without a penis, there could be no sodomy." It wasn't until the 1920's and 30's that U.S. sodomy laws were expanded to include sex acts between two women. Which doesn't exactly strike me as a "historical" basis (especially considering the first English sodomy laws were enacted in 1533, under Henry VIII... so in the 471 years of sodomy laws (I'm ending it in 2004, because of the Lawrence decision) under 15% of that time included girl-on-girl action). The moral of the story? Don't come at with me with sodomy laws, jackass, cause you're gonna lose.

***

So, as I mentioned, I'm attempting to make some improvements on the blog now that I'm done with school. One such improvement is an attempt by me to not solely write about depressing gay stuff. With that in mind, I once again turn my attention to zombies (I know, but they've been popping up a lot in my life recently). On the Facebook, I recently had to (well, "had to" might be a bit misleading, but we'll go with it) come up with a dream team to combat a zombie invasion with me. I thought I would take this opportunity to further expound on my reasons for choosing the members of my army. (Plus here, I don't have a limit on the number of people I can choose, so I've added someone extra at the end.)

Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #1: Bruce Campbell

Campbell has tons of experience fighting the zombie menace. Especially if the zombies were summoned by use of the Necronomicon. He's also willing, should he have to chop off his own hand for survival, to replace said hand with a frakking chainsaw! Check it out:



If you were a zombie, would you fuck with this guy? I think not.

(Note: You may think that I really want the character of Ash from the Evil Dead movies, not Bruce Campbell. You would be wrong. Please remember that Campbell also had to fight an evil mummy whilst portraying Elvis Presley. Campbell alone might be able to ward off a zombie attack, but just to be safe, I have reinforcements.)

Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #2: Homer Simpson

Sure, Homer may be fat, out-of-shape, stupid, and lazy. But, as I said on the Facebook, he's the kind of guy to shoot first and ask questions later, which is incredibly important when attempting to quell hordes of the ravenous undead. Like Campbell, he's had experience with zombies. And he's not scared of a little collateral damage.

Witness the following exchange, from Treehouse of Horror III, after Bart has unwittingly caused a zombie uprising:

Zombie Flanders: Hey Simpson! I'm feeling a mite peckish. Mind if I chew your ear?
(Homer shoots Ned and the others gasp.)
Bart: Dad, you killed the Zombie Flanders!
Homer: (Surprised) He was a zombie!?

Zombie Invasion Dream Team #3: Benjamin Linus

Ben Linus is perhaps a risky choice... it's unclear where his loyalties actually lie, and he's not above double-crossing close friends and allies... nor strangling individuals mere seconds after talking them out of killing themselves (I would have to hope that the zombies don't make Ben a better offer, because he'd probably take it). But he's a master planner, always thinking four or five steps ahead of everyone else, a needed asset, since many other team members are "doers," not "thinkers." Would make a good chess opponent during long nights spent in an underground bunker. And since, for all we know, Lost may be about a bunch of zombies, he may have experience in this area as well.

Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #4: GOB Bluth

GOB is, without a doubt, the most controversial of choices. He is a magician (albeit a rather poor one), and could conceivably distract the zombies with doves and fire flashes. But, as I intimated to Ms. Siska, when she questioned me on this choice, GOB serves a larger purpose.

You see, it is rather unlikely that all members of the Dream Team will survive the zombiepocalypse. One member must be seen as expendable, should weapons become scarce or should a team member have to be left behind. Without GOB, I will admit that I am, undoubtedly, the weakest member of the team. GOB, therefore, helps to ensure my survival. And, sad as it may seem, in a zombiepocalypse, one has to think of one's own interests first.

Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #5: Me

Take a good look at me.

Really.

Look closely. I'll wait.










See why I need GOB now?

Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #6: Iggy Pop

Honestly, Iggy Pop may actually be a zombie already. I mean, look at him.

But if he is, he's at least a remarkably well-tempered one, and could therefore infiltrate the zombie hordes and help to take them down from the inside. Plus, since all the crap he's done to himself hasn't killed him yet, I'm somewhat confident that he may be immortal, a definite advantage in fighting zombies.

Also, Iggy could compose a punk rock anthem to play while we fight the zombies, just like in the movies. GOB can carry around the portable music playing device.

Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #7: Elijah Wood

Because after we survive the zombiepocalypse, Elijah and I have to do our part and help repopulate the Earth.

I know what you're thinking.

But after a zombiepocalypse, anything is possible, my friends.

(And we'd have adorable-ass babies.)


Cheers.

In which I coin the term "Gay Hiatus," embed a video, bitch at CNN, and get paranoid about zombies. Again.

And hello.

So now that I ostensibly have more free time, I'm going to be gradually making some changes (improvements hopefully) to the blog. One of the things that I'm going to be trying to do is post shorter entries (along with some longer ones) so that I'm able to update more frequently. We'll see how it goes. (Edited to add: It did not go well).

So a shitstorm seems to be brewing over Obama and LGBT rights. If you'll recall, Obama promised a lot to the gays in the run-up to the election, including a repeal of both Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and Hate Crimes legislation. While the Hate Crimes bill is making some progress (as noted in the previous blog entry), everything else seems to have been placed on the back-burner.

Queer bloggers are up in arms, and even the mainstream media is beginning to take notice (which is kind of incredible to me). The Huffington Post had an article up discussing the pending discharge of Dan Choi, a National Guardsman who recently came out, entitled "Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist" The New York Times has published several pieces on the topic, including this article on Obama's complete silence on both LGBT issues and the recent advances of same-sex marriage, as well as this opinion piece.

CNN also did a piece on the brouhaha, which leads us to.... my first ever embedded video! (If I was able to figure out how to successfully do such a thing... and I think I did, so thanks Wes!).



So the clip is 10 minutes long, and as I know that many of you actually have productive, fulfilling lives and therefore don't have the time to devote to watching something of this length... I have kindly summarized the pertinent details. Feel free to watch (or listen) and follow along, or just read my comments for a handy-dandy synopsis.

0:20: Segment begins with video report and discussion of same-sex marriage (of course). Reporter says: "It's an issue that can't be ignored... or can it?" CNN is a paragon of journalistic standards... or is it?

0:49: In re: marriage equality... "Nary a word from President Obama... think 10-foot pole." I can't tell you how sick I get of watching news reports about Obama's pole.

1:37: Reporter says that the issue of same-sex marriage (no, she hasn't covered any other topic of LGBT rights yet) is "politically tricky" (I think that's the academic term), because CNN's most recent poll shows that only 46% of self-identified independent voters favor same-sex marriage. If I were a reporter talking about this, I think my angle would be something more like: "Holy shit! 46% of independents are in favor of same-sex marriage? Support is sky-rocketing at a fantastic pace! What the hell is going on?!?" But that's just me.

2:08: Finally mentions other issues. Don't Ask, Don't Tell and HIV funding. And mentions the fact that Obama has appointed some queers in his administration, but no cabinet members. Reporter says this: "Some activists hoped for a cabinet seat," implying that only the radical wing of the LGBT movement thought it might be justified in hoping for the first ever openly LGBT cabinet member. And then she brings up Rick Warren, which I am so done with that I'm just going to skip over it.

2:41: Reporter indicates a "willingness to be patient" in the LGBT community and interviews some random queer dude. Wait a second... if there's a willingness to be patient, doesn't that negate the entirety of the previous two minutes of the report, which said that the gays were pissed? Are the people at CNN really this stupid?

2:43: Random queer dude says "I think it's clear that Barack Obama is the most pro-gay President we've ever had." Well, if we're counting pro-gay as completely ignoring us since being elected, then yes. Totally pro-gay. Awesome.

2:55: Random queer dude thinks the "majority of the gay community" understands that the Obama has "a lot on his plate right now." I always love it when one person feels entitled to speak for a large and unwieldy group. And I can't wait for the time that the President of the United States doesn't have "a lot" on his plate anymore. Should be right around the corner, right?

3:08: Reporter thinks that "on many" gay issues, the President will deliver. Has shown no evidence of such a thing happening in the report, but what the hell? She seems confident, so now, so am I.

3:20: And now, Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Paul Begala (I'm a Democrat!) and Mary Matalin (I'm a Republican!). I'm glad that CNN didn't feel the need to include any LGBT people in the discussion, because they would have absolutely no useful perspective on this topic. But Begala and Matalin make such a good team, I forget all of my concerns.

4:24: Begala: Obama has to choose priorities. And this isn't the right time for civil and equal rights for a minority to be a priority, according to the heterosexual, upper-class white male. Oh, and he says that the gay rights movement seems to be advancing very nicely without Obama. So why are we queers so upset anyway? Why would we want the President, who promised to support us and help us achieve equality, to actually, you know, do that? God, we're such fags.

4:52: Begala thinks Obama will "one day support gay marriage." The implication, of course, is that he will when it's politically popular. God bless democracy.

5:21: Matalin points out civil unions are more popular than same-sex marriage. Good point, Mary! We should always do what the majority thinks is best, because they always know best. See: every civil rights struggle in this country's history.

6:15: Begala, to his credit, comes out against DADT. (See? I'm not completely critical.)

6:38: Begala: "Matter of timing and priorities." Alright, so back to critical. So LGBT service members should just keep getting fired in the meantime? Bite me, Begala. Blitzer brings up the above HuffPo article.

7:18: Matalin tells us she's a Catholic, pro-gay person. Thanks?

7:38: Blitzer says that DADT is stupid because we're spending money to train these people. Yeah, that's why it's stupid.

7:58: After some more Begala droning about waiting, Blitzer rightfully points out that Truman desegregated the army with an executive order. The implication, of course, is why isn't Obama doing the same? Go Blitzer! (Never thought I'd write those words together.)

8:55: Matalin also advises Obama to take "more time" in repealing DADT. You know, I like Obama. I voted for him (twice). But the argument that equal rights can wait, while there's "more pressing matters" is one that I just can't buy into. There's always going to be something. Obama has a chance to make history (even more history than he's already made). He has a chance to stand up and make LGBT citizens equal, under the law. And since being elected, there's no indication that he will. And Matalin, I'm glad you think Obama should wait. I'm sure you would feel the same way, had this been about women getting discharged from the military or getting fired from their cushy broadcasting jobs for having vaginas.

While I'm glad that CNN decided to broach the topic, the whole segment seemed rather pointless to me. Both Begala and Matalin, basically, agreed on everything. They both think that the gays should be patient and sit quietly in the corner, waiting for Obama to finally have enough time to get around to ending discrimination against a minority. Why did CNN not include an LGBT person in this discussion? (You know, someone with a vested interest in the conversation? Some, any, queer? Where was Anderson Cooper?) Did they use up their quota of gays during the video segment? Hell, I would have even been ok with including one of the right-wing nutjobs, just to make the conversation something other than mind-numbingly boring.

I just wonder how much effect any of this will have. The mainstream media has apparently decided that this is a story they're going to cover... which means the White House is going to have to keep responding to it. Pam's House Blend has a great piece up about the press pushing Robert Gibbs on Obama's "Gay Hiatus" (as I think I've decided to call it) and Gibbs' not-so-artful attempts to dodge the questions. I guess we'll see if the media actually pushes Obama into saying or doing anything.

I know that Obama is a busy man. But whenever his administration says something like "We're getting to it" or "He has a lot on his plate," I can't help be reminded of that situation last year, when the economy imploded and John McCain flipped his shit and flew to Washington and tried to cancel the debate. Obama responded by saying this: "[I]t is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

So trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that Obama is focusing on more than one thing at a time... what does it say about the man that securing equal rights for his citizens doesn't seem to rank in his top 20 or 30 priorities?

I know that legislation takes time. I know Obama doesn't want to burn any bridges. I know the economy's in the shitter and there's war and disease (and no one's more concerned about swine flu than me) and possibly much worse on the horizon (see: end of this post). I'm not expecting to wake up tomorrow and have all these issues be solved. I just want the man who told me he would stick up for me and others like me, who called himself a "fierce advocate" for our cause... I just want him to say something. Anything. Acknowledge us. Because otherwise... how is this administration's silence on LGBT issues any different than the last administration?

***

Now, I don't want to frighten anyone... but there's a very good chance that the inevitable zombie apocalypse might be right around the corner. Don't believe me?

Check this out.

It's starting.

Cheers.

In which I am almost a social worker, mention necrophilia (with help from some evangelical Christians), and discuss zombies, both gay and otherwise

Hello again.

So the good news is that I've finished my last assignment for grad school... which means that I should have much more time to update this thing... since otherwise, I have no idea how I'm going to fill the many evenings ahead. The bad news is that it also means that, in less than a week, I'll officially be a social worker.

Honestly, I have rather mixed feelings about the whole situation. As many of you know, I don't particularly have any real desire to be a social worker, which is why I'm currently thinking law school is in my near future (though the Antisocial Lawyer doesn't really have quite the same ring to it. Insert your own lawyer joke here). But I will say that, if you'll allow me one moment to step back from the usual crankiness and misanthropy, I've met some of the greatest people of my life in social work school. And I'm gonna miss them, as they leave both me and this town for bigger and better things.

Anyways. On to the usual shit.

***

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (aka the Matthew Shepard Act) is wending its way through Congress. Last week, it passed the House of Representatives, and now heads to the Senate. Obama has said, repeatedly, that he'll sign such legislation.

So the bill looks like it actually might pass and, you know, help to protect the queers. If you're thinking that would be a good thing, well... you're wrong. At least according to a fantastic organization, Faith2Action. (You know you're a classy group when your name looks like something a Jonas Brothers fan would text. I'm surprised they didn't decide to name it "F8h2Action, OMG LOL Gossip Girl ROKS!!!")

So F2A (as all the cool kids like to call it) has its underwear in a wad over the legislation, for several completely non-insane reasons. Let's go through them together, shall we?

1) Did you know that this legislation would make pedophiles a protected class? It's true! Read about it here, in F2A's handy two-page "fact" sheet. In a nutshell, the argument goes that because the legislation mentions the term "sexual orientation"... and pedophile is evidently a type of sexual orientation... well, you don't need me to connect the dots here. But wait! There's more! Not only would pedophiles become a protected class, but so would: those who commit incest (I didn't know that was a sexual orientation, but if you can't trust the F2A, who can you trust?), necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs (bestiality), and coprophiliacs (I'm gonna let y'all look up that one on your own), amongst others. F2A's lead (only?) employee, Janice Porter, has even decided to rename the act: the "Pedophile Protection Act." Has a catchy ring to it, no? I always wonder, in situations like this one, if these people actually believe that this is what's going to happen? Or are they just so good at lying, so used to spreading misinformation that this kind of nonsense just comes naturally to them? Yes, scare tactics work... again and again... but aren't we getting to a point where this kind of thing just sounds ridiculous? Besides... you would think that a religious organization would think twice about using pedophilia as a weapon, considering what a lot of people think of when the subject comes up.

2) Hey, did you know that "pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law"? It's true, at least according to Janice Porter. Two thoughts here: First, I rather enjoy the idea that this woman thinks that if a gay hits on a heterosexual, the heterosexual will have to give in to the gay's sexual advances or be guilty of a hate crime. I, for one, think my dating life would improve greatly if this were the case, though it seems like it'd be a difficult thing to enforce. Perhaps all the queers will be issued Hate Crime Air Horns™ for whenever someone turns us down for a date? Which leads to Thought B, which is actually a bit scary. Perhaps Porter is not using the term "pushing away" figuratively, but rather literally. Does she actually think that someone rebuffing the advances of a queer is justified in inflicting physical harm on her/him? Though it may seem unlikely, I have a hard time giving someone who spews so much hate and vitriol the benefit of the doubt. So in advance... bite me, Porter.

3) I'm kind of cheating with this one because it's actually written by someone from WorldNetDaily, but Porter mentions this argument in the article linked in reason #2, so I'm including it. So, by now, we all know that the Matthew Shepard Act would create a "special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles." And that's bad enough. But what's even worse, evidently, is that the Act has NO protections for "other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly." This is, of course, a huge oversight by the writers of the legislation. As we all know, pastors are constantly assaulted verbally, attacked, and killed, just because they happen to be a pastor. Is this argument for real? Seriously? Not only is it ridiculous, it completely ignores the fact that OF COURSE RELIGION IS INCLUDED AS A PROTECTED CLASS. But unless the legislation mentions Christians by name, it's not good enough? How is that not creating a "special class" for people?!? Even better, I left out the beginning of the linked quote. The actual text from the article reads: "It SPECIFICALLY (emphasis added) denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly." You see that? Now, I had a hard time believing that the legislation went out of its way to specifically deny these protections to those individuals. That it actually said something along the lines of: "These protections are specifically NOT VALID for pastors and Christians and veterans, and etc." But then I went and looked at the bill, and, dammit, it does. Oops. My bad.

***

So in case you haven't heard, the School Violence Prevention Act (aka the anti-bullying bill) passed its 2nd reading in the NC Senate today, 25-22. The final vote in the Senate will be tomorrow. The bill would standardize all bullying policies in public schools in NC and specifically prohibit bullying based on a list of enumerated categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity. If it passes in the Senate tomorrow, it'll move to the House... and if it passes there, it'll be the first piece of legislation ever passed by the NC General Assembly that includes the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Baby steps, right?

Well, the Family Policy Council of North Carolina, an offshoot of Focus on the Family, is, as you might imagine, not happy with this recent development. They've issued a Web Alert!!!, urging people to call their senators and voice disapproval of the legislation. Why are they so upset about it? You would think that an organization that purports to uphold "family values" would be all in favor of protecting kids in school, right?

Nope. Not even a little. Their problem? "This would establish a statewide policy that affirms homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-dressing and other related behaviors as normal and acceptable." Because we should, in no way, tell our LGBT children that they're normal or acceptable. Certainly not. Instead, we should continue to tell them that they're disgusting perverts whose thoughts and actions are sins against God. And that they could change who they are, if only they tried hard enough. And that they should continue to be marginalized. And, tacitly, that they DESERVE to be bullied in schools, because maybe, just maybe, if they're bullied enough, they'll recognize the errors of their ways. Because that never ends badly.

If you live in North Carolina and are able, call your state senator tomorrow and ask them to support the School Violence Prevention Act. If you don't know who your legislator is, you can find out here.

***

This has turned out to be a somewhat lengthy post, so we'll just tackle one more before calling it a night. A dead man suspected of being a queer (while alive, natch) has twice been dug up from his grave in Senegal. It seems that the locals don't want a gay man hanging around. Even a dead one.

The first time they dug up his body, they left it near the grave. His family reburied the man, only to see the body dug up again and "dumped outside the family house." He has since been buried again, away from the cemetery in question.

How ridiculous is this? Everyone knows that you need a live host to catch "the gay." (I don't mean to make light of a disturbing and disgusting story. Honestly though, this is so over-the-top, I don't know how else to react.)

The only other thing I can think of is that the Senegal locals are so scared of a) zombies and b) super gay zombies that they couldn't sleep at night until the body was moved.

(By the by, I had never heard of that movie either, until I Googled "gay zombie" to find a link to put there. (Yes, I care about your enjoyment of this blog so much, dear readers, that I'm willing to Google things for you.) I'm gonna have to check it out, I think, even though it looks completely and utterly awful.)

***

Speaking of zombies (nice segue, right?), I finally got my hands on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies today. In case you haven't heard of it, or heard me talking about it, it's a novel that tells the exact story of Pride and Prejudice... but with zombies too! Here's a review.

Until next time (which, again... should hopefully be sooner than later)...

Cheers.