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 spend some time on Oprah's message boards, amongst other masochistic activities

So I'm well aware that y'all are enormous Oprah fans who never miss a show. But just in case your DVR broke down yesterday... on the Oprah show, a reverend, in response to a question from a gay man, said that "being gay is a gift from God." According to the linked article, this set off quite a discussion at the Oprah Winfrey show message boards.

And because I have much less of a life than I'm sure you do, dear reader (all 5 of you), I waded through some of the comments. The thread begins with a woman from the UK expressing her disapproval of the statement. It then, as I'm sure you would expect, turns into a veritable clearinghouse for Bible-thumpers, with an occasional reasonable voice poking through.

What almost interests me more, however, is that the 18th post was from one of the moderators of the message board, reminding everyone to respect each others views... and that the terms and conditions of the website prohibit people from defaming or insulting people, or posting abusive or hateful comments. Again, that was post #18.

(The following are a random assortment of comments, helpfully paraphrased by me... unless I use quotes... obviously):

Post #26: Leviticus gets dragged out, queers get called an abomination.
Post #30: More like a gift from satan.
Post #34: Knows a lot of gays, all of them are miserable! Can't be a gift...
Post #36: "Women have a whole [sic]... Men have a stick." Not really offensive, but couldn't resist mentioning it.
Post #61: Lifestyle's a choice!!!
Post #63: "Grave sin."
Post #74: Mentions murderers, rapists, child molesters, cannibals... I have to admit I had a hard time following this one. But abomination was definitely in there.
Post #77: "This is like giving [gay young people] a green light."
Post #78: Queers compared to alcoholics and people with anger management issues.
Post #120: More rapists and child molesters.

I could go on (really, I could... there are like 18 more pages of this), but I think you get the point... and the site keeps crashing anyway.

Ok, so here's my question: In what universe are the above comments not insulting, abusive, or hateful?

And I don't mean to just pick on Oprah... this happens on a lot of other sites that have comment sections and message boards and happen to post something about the queers. But what really kind of aggravates me about this is that a moderator felt the need to reiterate the terms of the site because it was obvious that people were/were about to post unkind things... but since that moderator's post, there's been no enforcement of any kind (at least not that I can tell).

I always find myself coming back to the notion that maybe poster #34's legions of gay friends are miserable because they have to continually see and hear crap like this.

Thanks, Oprah.

***

Moving right along. I have to give this article a mention because one of the author's arguments against giving gays the right to marry is this:

"There is also the danger that misusing terminology long agreed upon in western thought will impoverish the language to the point that it is incapable of expressing nuanced thoughts and concepts."

Gays marrying will destroy the English language as we know it and lead us all to become idiots.

Yeah.

***

Obama watch! Our next president has appointed another gay! This one will serve as the deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison.

I like to consider myself a fairly intelligent human being, but I'd kind of appreciate it if Obama would appoint a queer to some position where I could understand what the hell the job is.

***

This has been floating around for a couple days, but from the AP: 9 men in Senegal have been sentenced to 8 years in jail for "unnatural acts and criminal conspiracy."

(That means they're gay.)

While admittedly an improvement over the Gambian president who wants to decapitate all gays, I can't say I'm exactly encouraged.

One of the problems with the LGBT rights movement... wait... One of the MANY problems with the LGBT rights movement (at least in the US) is that it tends to be focused on only the US. Perhaps understandable, but a lot of really bad things are happening in a lot of places, and the fact that no one is aware of it is kind of frustrating to me.

***

And finally, something not gay. So I received my student loan check today, and am somewhat ashamed to admit that my first thought was: What can I buy? I managed to restrain myself somewhat, but did end up downloading "Visiter" by the Dodos. I had been a bit wary of the cd from the snippets I had heard on the iTunes. But enough people recommended them to me that I decided to check it out... and it's all kinds of awesome. Although it incorporates a lot of elements from the music I love, it still manages to sound very different... and I mean that in the best possible way. If you're interested in learning more, here's the Pitchfork review.

Until some other time.

Cheers.

Today in depressing gay news

Alright. Since I've started this blog, I figure I might as well use it. Normally, I would post these things to Facebook, but let's take this format for a test drive, shall we?

In Ohio just after Xmas, Nathan Runkle, 24, was attacked outside of a gay club. Nathan started his own non-profit animal rights organization, Mercy for Animals, when he was 15. That organization issued a press release, stating that Runkle sustained "two facial fractures, a broken nose, a deviated septum, and severe facial bruising." You can see the rest of the press release, which includes more details on what happened, here (the man who assaulted him has not been found yet):

http://queeranimals.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/gay-animal-rights-activist-attacked

I think that it's a really sad state of affairs when my first reaction to this horrific attack was "At least he's still alive." And I can't help but think of my old friend, Mike Huckabee. For those of you who don't remember, Huckabee made the incredibly asinine statement a few months ago that gay rights aren't civil rights because not enough queers have been assaulted or killed. You can refresh your memory of that here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/18/huckabee-gay-rights

Since Huckabee made that statement, there seems to have been an upswing in violence against LGBT individuals. Perhaps some of the Huck's followers took his comments as a challenge?

If you're interested in reading more, a blogger at the Huffington Post wrote an essay discussing the attack on Nathan and other recent assaults. You can see that here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikko-alanne/a-hate-crime-you-wont-see_b_155665.html

***

Speaking of hate crimes, in 2007, Sean William Kennedy was attacked outside of a South Carolina bar. He died from his injuries. His attacker was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to an extremely short prison sentence (5 years, which the judge suspended to 3... and time already served would count). You can read about that here:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/news/16570367/detail.html

When I originally posted about this on Facebook, I said "Evidently murdering a queer in South Carolina only gets you a slap on the wrist."

Well, I was wrong. It gets you even less than that.

Word came today that, thanks to South Carolina's early parole system, the man who murdered Sean Kennedy could get paroled as early as NEXT MONTH. Total time served? 8 damn months.

8 months. That's... so unbelievable to me that I don't even know what to say about it.

There's a lot of things going on here, but, honestly, I have a hard time faulting South Carolina's parole system. If that's how it works, that's how it works. What I DO have a hard time with, however, are the aspects of our society that caused a grand jury to refuse to hand down an indictment for murder for what was obviously a hate crime (after all... I don't know how much more clear-cut it can be when a person attacks a gay man while calling him a "faggot") and a judge to sentence the murderer to a ridiculously lenient sentence. That I have a problem with.

Other things that I have a problem with? A media that steadfastly ignores these crimes (although I guess I should be thankful for this, or I'd have to listen to some evangelical nut on the news talking about how queer=sin... since the media can never cover anything LGBT-related without allowing someone who believes that I'm worse than Hitler to have air time), people like Mike Huckabee (I know, I know... but he has it coming) who manage to scapegoat and then marginalize a whole community of people being assaulted and killed all around the world for political gain, and LGBT individuals who pause for a moment (if even that) upon hearing of a murder like this and then retreat back into their worlds of clubbing and sex. One of the things that I'll never understand is how hearing about things like this doesn't motivate more people to get involved in the LGBT movement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really feel like every single LGBT individual (and our straight allies) needs to be a part of this struggle. Equal rights can't be procured by a small handful of people "doing all the work." It's not just "activists" who need to be involved. Everyone does. This is supposed to be a MOVEMENT. As it stands now, it's more like a gentle rustling in the breeze. If that.

But that argument is for another day. (I bet all three of you who read this can't wait for that posting!) I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Anyway, Sean Kennedy's mom is trying to start a letter writing campaign to keep her son's murderer in jail. If you're interested in learning more, click here:

http://seanslastwish.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/action-alert-from-seans-last-wish

***

In other news, Obama's picked a gay to be a secretary! Awesome.

I'm being a bit facetious here. I'm thrilled that Obama can include queers in his administration in positions that have no impact on policy-making.

I'm probably being a bit harder on him than I really mean to be, but I think the above items made me a tad grouchy. If you're interested, read more here:

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/01/05/obama-names-gay-director-of-office-of-management-and-administration/

Cheers.