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 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.

In which I delve into an outbreak of equality, rely way too much on Wikipedia in an attempt to prove a point, and promote mindless violence

Hello!

So, in case you've been living under a rock for the last week or so, Iowa and Vermont now have marriage equality (well, maybe not right this second, but quite soon)! All that, plus Washington D.C.'s city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. So, all in all, a pretty watershed moment for the LGBT movement... or at least a pretty watershed moment for one aspect of the LGBT movement.

Before we wade into the crazies who hate us so, a few thoughts.

First, if you haven't actually read a summary of the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision, you should. It's a pretty remarkable piece of writing. The justices saw fit not only to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, but also to individually debunk every single argument the "traditional marriage only" people generally proffer. All of 'em. Good for Iowa.

Vermont was interesting as well, as it was the first state to enact marriage equality through the legislature, not by court order. I'm on record as saying that I think it's a much more powerful statement for equality to happen this way... plus it completely undermines the religious right's argument of judicial activists overturning the will of the public and the like. Well, no fear... they're resilient, these people. Always ready with a new idiotic argument. (My favorite part is this quote: "It's sort of like being the first country to voluntarily go communist." It made me laugh, and for that, at least, it gets points for creative nutbaggery.)

But the most interesting thing about the Vermont situation, to me at least, is how little coverage I really saw of it. The day the legislation passed, I had CNN on. When it first happened, CNN broke the news. And then, for the next three or four hours... nothing. Almost complete silence. Certainly no talking heads screaming hysterically into the camera about the Decline of Western Civilization (sponsored by those insidious queers). And yes, I do know that there was some of that later on, over the next few days... but the frequency of it was generally much, much less (at least on the non-Fox News news stations). Even better, in some of the interviews with these sorts of people, I noticed a creeping sentiment from several anchors of "What the hell's the big deal? Let the damn queers marry already!" Worlds away from the "sky is falling" mentality of newspeople following the Massachusetts (and even California) court decision.

Before we fall down the rabbit hole of the hysterical online (and otherwise) reaction to the rulings, let me direct you to adorable nerd Nate Silver's article projecting when the citizens of every state would fail to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (ignoring the fact that many of these states already have them... this is more about public opinion). It's really fascinating stuff, and his statistical analysis shows how quickly change may come on this issue (FYI, NC would fail to approve an amendment in 2019... just one more decade of bigotry to go!). I'm not sure I agree with all his methods, but Silver is much, much smarter than me... and it's incredibly interesting... so let's just go with it for now.

***

Alright.

I think the last week has caused certain members of the religious right to completely lose their shit. How else do you explain articles like this one, which manages to somehow link mass murders and gay marriage? For serious. It does. It's even there in the title of the article, should you dare to click on it.

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, this quote can pretty much serve as the author's thesis: "It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders."

Our good friends at Wikipedia tell me that the term "sexual revolution" most often refers to a period in the 1960's and 70's, though it can sometimes include a period starting in the 1920's with Freud's writings.

So, using my fantastical powers of inference, I can deduce that the author feels that, before the 1960's (or the 1920's, if one's inclined to be generous. Which I am not), moral standards were much higher. Yes, indeedy. No immorality existed before then, and no epidemic of mass murders... especially none in the name of faith. Because people of faith are on a much higher moral ground. For sure.

***

Then there's this guy, who argues that the Iowa court decision will be more damaging to the state than the hugeass flood that occurred last year. The flood that caused an estimated $10 BILLION in damages, displaced 40,000 Iowans, and caused one fatality.

Nope, the gays marrying is much, much, much worse than that. It's almost flattering, in a perverse sort of way.

Again, an actual quote: "It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa. Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing. Legalized "homosexual marriage," on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage."

I wonder if I went up to an Iowan who had his or her home destroyed by the flood... or the family of the person who was killed during it... or flood victims who began showing signs of asthma and bronchitis because of the levels of formaldehyde present in FEMA trailers... if I went up to one of them and asked: "Which is worse? The natural disaster that significantly altered your way of life, perhaps forever... or the queers marrying?"... I wonder what they would say?

Jackass.

***

One more?

How about this article, which frets about Iowa becoming a "homosexual mecca." What a ridiculous statement! No one could buy into that, right?

Oh wait... this guy.

And this one (an actual legislator)!

Even Omaha.com picked up on the meme, though in a slightly less insulting way.

So will it? Will Iowa surpass San Francisco as the destination for all queers? Will thousands of deviant homosexuals descend upon the unsuspecting citizens of Iowa and amass enough political power to make "YMCA" the official state song?

Probably not. And Dan Savage sums up why, in three short words.

***

Before I go, the Onion has a video report about a hot new video game. And it's awesome. Check it out!

And even better, you can actually play it!

Cheers.

In which I mention Jesus twice, get overwhelmed by hate crimes, talk about good vs. evil, and actually share some hopeful news

Hello again!

So since I've evidently completely stopped doing schoolwork... and since the empty, fruitless search for a job is slowly killing my spirit... I thought I'd write another blog post.

Let's delve in, shall we?

So, on the Facebook, I've occasionally written about the American Family Association (AFA) and their ridiculous boycotts of various companies (i.e. McDonald's, Campbell's Soup) they think are supporting the gays. The interesting thing about their boycotts is that they're not asking companies to support their side or opinions... no, they just want the companies to "remain neutral in the culture war." I have to say that it seems like a pretty desperate state of affairs if the best argument you can muster is "You don't have to side with me... just don't side with them." I wonder when they decided that asking companies to support them and their batshit insane beliefs wasn't working? (Scroll down in the article to discover how schools are now teaching fisting to high school students!) (And not this type of fisting.)

Anyway. The AFA is now targeting Pepsi for donating some money to the HRC and PFLAG. And for being a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. And for "forcing" employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity diversity seminars (Because God forbid we learn to tolerate and accept each other? Jesus would be appalled at such a notion, I'm sure). They even have a Facebook Causes page! (What cracks me up most about the Causes page is that it's listed under "Public Advocacy- Civil Rights and Liberties"... although, to be fair, I suppose it does have something to do with civil rights, insomuch as they're trying to prevent a group from having any.)

Sadly for all of us, the AFA seems to have learned a lesson from their boycott of McDonald's... that it's best not to post the comments of their supporters, because they sound like absolute lunatics. Don't believe me? Check out this article, which prints some of the best of them.

It remains to be seen if the AFA can bring down the lavender menace that is the Pepsi Corporation (after all... when I think of gay, I think Pepsi. Yep. It goes Pepsi, sodomy, rainbows... in that order). But it should be amusing, at least.

***

Two gay men in Oregon were attacked and beaten unconscious by a group of men who called them fags.

That one's just the tip of the iceberg though. There's been so many hate crimes (and updates of hate crimes) in the last week or so that I just don't have the time or energy to comment on all of them. Which is saying something. So instead, I'm just going to link to this comprehensive roundup found on Towleroad and attempt to resist the Huckabee-bashing I'm so fond of engaging in.

Ah, screw it. Bite me, Huckabee.

***

I'm often accused of being a tad too depressing, so here's some hopeful news. A group in Gainesville, Florida tried to repeal the city's anti-discrimination policy, which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The measure was placed on the ballot, and the group advocating the repeal was responsible for one of the most reprehensible tv ads I've ever seen.

The good news? On Tuesday, the ballot measure was rejected. And not just rejected. SOUNDLY rejected. Almost 60% of voters refused to buy into the fear-mongering and thinly veiled homo/transphobia behind the measure.

Go Gainesville. At least the 60% or so who aren't bigots, I guess.

***

The undergrad queer group at UNC-Chapel Hill, in conjunction with the Young Democrats, decided to put on a production of Prop 8: The Musical. I'm not quite sure why or for what, but what the hell? Let's go with it.

If you never saw the original, you totally should. So the performance went on, and it inspired a letter to the editor in the DTH. Really inspired stuff. If you want a sneak preview, it includes lines like this: "If this play had treated any other religion the way it treated Christianity, there would be riots by the same arrogant bunch that put on this moronic musical."

I'm tempted to use this as fodder for my theory that UNC isn't nearly as liberal of a place as it likes to pretend, but I also know that cranky religious bigots exist everywhere. (By the by, the author of the letter is an Economics major (and, judging from his "Chairman Obama" comment (seriously), a Republican)... and I just have to ask... how are those Republican economics working out for us? As mentioned, I'm having no problem trying to find a job. It's awesome.)

***

My sister lives in Delaware.

Two pieces of legislation have been introduced in the Delaware state legislature: one, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage... the other, a non-discrimination act that includes sexual orientation (it seems like gender identity isn't included... because why should transgender individuals get any protection?).

It's the exact same peculiar situation that's happening right now in NC: at the same time some are seeking to protect the rights of the gays, others are trying to take them away. And I just wonder... do the legislators fail to see the irony in all of this? Because it amuses me to make somewhat mundane things into things that are wildly grandiose, I like to think of this kind of situation as a battle for the soul of the state. Good vs. Evil, and all that.

Unfortunately, evil usually wins this fight. In the name of Jesus.

More irony.

***

Lastly.

I know this has been kicking around for a couple days but...

Where the Wild Things Are is an awesome, awesome book. And when I heard they were turning it into a movie, I was kind of nervous. How could it possibly work (even with an awesome director like Spike Jonze behind it)?

Well, the trailer came out... and it's completely fantastic.

I officially can't wait.

Cheers.

In which I get preachy, endorse something with the word 'faggot' in it, introduce photos into the blog, and try to prove I have a sense of humor.

And I'm back. Just don't get used to such a quick turnaround... spring break helps. A lot. As does procrastination.

So much to discuss, so let's wade right in, shall we?

What should we start with... oh yeah... how about this?:





Evidently, this has been floating around the Internet over the last few days, but it somehow managed to elude my attention. This is an actual sign, made by an actual human being (for lack of a better term), at the Prop 8 hearings last week. Find more info on it here and here.

Equality California used the picture as part of a fundraising email they sent out this week, and I'm actually not quite sure how I feel about that. I mean, my first reaction to that photo isn't "oh, let me whip out my checkbook." Instead, it's "wow... the man who wrote that must be batshit insane." (Plus, I'm a little bitter at them anyway, because I called them today and no one ever called me back. Boo, queers without manners.) I guess I just really wish that more people who don't identify as some sort of queer (or queer ally... qually?) could see it.

I'll admit that I'm a bit on the fence as to how effective putting these sorts of images (i.e. the Phelps clan) front and center actually is. But I do think it's important for people to see how deeply some individuals hate... because I really don't think it registers with some (most?).

Those of us who identify as LGBT are so often labeled or presented as an "other." A large part of this, I think, is because we tend to be reactive as a movement, not proactive. We need to get our messages, our stories out there. And we need to do it first.

So my reaction right now is put this out there. As a newspaper ad, a commercial, a frakking billboard (how shocking would that sign look 50-feet wide?). Show people our "others." Help change the debate. Show people how much we're hated. Make them choose a side. If they're not with this nutbag... well, who are they with? They can stand on the same side as the guy who wrote that. Or they can stand with us. And we're much more fun. (Well, not me, per se. But us in general.) It's time for us to start shaping the debate. And not play catch-up anymore.

End preachy rant.

***

I find this absolutely hilarious.

Evidently, someone put up Red Cross flyers advertising a blood drive around the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The flyer lists qualifications for donating blood, such as having to be 17 years old, weigh at least 110 lbs, and so on. And at the end of the list of qualifications? It says "No Faggots."

I would encourage clicking the above link and watching the news story. I really think the reporter means well, but she seems to actually think this was a homophobic act. It seems beyond her that it might be a bunch of queers who did it, to protest the Red Cross's discriminatory policy banning gay men from donating blood. Oh wait... not all gay men. Just gay men who have sex.

I couldn't find a jpeg of the flyer from Minnesota, but here's one that a bunch of queer activists whipped up in Maine last year:



I think this is absolutely great. It's kind of subtle, but noticeable enough to make a splash. And it gets a story in the news that most people are clueless about.

***

The queers are coming for your children!!!!!

Not content to simply prohibit the gays from the sanctity and tax breaks of marriage, the religious right is now attempting to prevent us dirty queers from adopting. Some of you may know that Arkansas recently banned anyone "co-habitating outside of a valid marriage" from adopting kids. This, of course, makes it impossible for two queers in a loving, committed relationship to adopt a kid.

And this is catching on.

The Senate Judiciary Committee in Kentucky recently held a secret, clandestine meeting (no shit... it really was... read the article) passing similar legislation. It will now go to the full Senate. Where, because it's frakking Kentucky, it'll probably pass.

The article lays out some interesting figures. It's estimated that, if passed, the bill will cost Kentucky $5.3 million in its first year of implementation alone. Good thing that the economy's in such fantastic shape! I'm sure Kentucky will have no problem finding the money to cover such costs!

That was (obviously) sarcasm, but I actually am pretty sure where they'll find the money. Probably cutting the DSS budget (because wouldn't that just be poetic?) or welfare or some other program that people desperately need.

Also: it's estimated that 630 foster children would have to be removed from their current homes. But that's ok. I'm sure bouncing kids around from home to home has absolutely no effect on their emotional well-being. And I'm sure that Kentucky will have no problem finding hundreds of new foster parents. I'm sure of it. And evidently so are these legislators.

I know I use this expression a lot, but this is just mind-boggling to me. How irresponsible are these legislators? Not only, of course, are LGBT individuals just as capable as raising kids as the straights... but in the middle of an economic meltdown, these individuals are going to do something that's going to cost the state a great deal of money. Not to mention remove kids from loving foster homes, while at the same time limiting the number of people who could adopt them. All in the name of homophobia. Family values indeed.

***

I'm only including this because sometimes I feel the need to prove I have a sense of humor. It may become a bit of a running theme after some of my preachier postings.

***

Lastly, if you're around and want to show some support for the queers, there's going to be a press conference for the School Violence Prevention Act tomorrow in Raleigh. More details here. It'll be a smashing good time for all!

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.