Darkside Rainbow

Click to view full-size.

< < previous | archive | next > >

…what? They can’t all be about being gay. My life doesn’t revolve around being gay, so my comic won’t always, either.

So…yeah. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but part of my highly-mixed ethnicity includes a significant portion of Native American blood. When I say I’m part Native, I don’t mean “I’m white as hell but think it makes me cool to say that I have a great-grandmother nine generations back who was a blue-eyed Cherokee princess”. I mean “You know, next summer I really should take a trip out to visit my uncle and cousins on the reservation.”

So on matters of principle, I don’t celebrate the current common American idea of Thanksgiving - but I also don’t take it as seriously as the comic makes it sound. Every war has a loser, and the victor is often those with the best weapons and superior numbers. I’m not happy that Native culture has been either murdered, assimilated, or erased and is in danger of melting away entirely, but being an a** about it to Americans who enjoy Thanksgiving won’t change the past. So I have my principles, but try to keep a sense of humor about them - hence mocking both myself and my friend a bit via comic. (My friend was wrong, though, when we had this conversation. I do celebrate Christmas, just not from a religious standpoint - more from the “spirit of giving” standpoint, which is why I call it Happy Shiny Buy Things for My Friends Day, as I love giving gifts. And the only reason I don’t celebrate Easter is because I often forget about it until the day after, which happens to be my favorite holiday of the year (especially since it occurs after almost every holiday): Cheap Candy Day.)

For something a little more GBLTQ-topical, Anji sent me a link yesterday regarding the ongoing and tiresome battle over an Okeechobee, FL high school’s gay-straight alliance - in which the school board called the alliance a “sex-based club”. That statement alone is a horrible demonstration of the ignorance in society that helps to perpetuate both prejudices and stereotypes. Understanding one’s sexuality and gathering with those who also seek to understand their sexuality and fight for their rights doesn’t mean that they’re also gathering to act on that sexuality. Being gay isn’t just about having sex, and gay issues aren’t just about sexual experimentation or gratification. At this point the actual sex involved is practically tangential; there are so many more issues of human rights involved that I can’t believe anyone would think a gay-straight alliance, intended to promote tolerance and acceptance, was nothing more than a “sex-based club”.

But that’s not all from the WTF Factory today, kids. Not by a long shot. Apparently, if you disagree with the GBLTQ rights that a particular employer offers its workers, the answer is to buy out as much stock as possible in that company in order to gain a majority interest and, via shareholder vote, force those dirty gay supporters to comply with your beliefs. No, I’m not joking. Reverend Ken Hutcherson is urging conservatives to do just that with Microsoft.

That goes beyond extremism and into insanity. One can assume that most of these people don’t even work for Microsoft, but they’re so bothered by the fact that M$ - who really can’t be redeemed in my eyes, but at least this is one point in their favor - dares to support GBLTQ workers’ right to equality that even though it doesn’t affect them, they want to strip that right away. Why? Because it constitutes “pushing the homosexual agenda”.

What. The. Hell. That’s not pushing a homosexual agenda; I’m about as sick of that phrase as I am of the phrase “sanctity of marriage”. There is no homosexual agenda. We don’t distribute manifestos regarding our secret plan to conquer the country and turn it into a giant disco version of Fire Island; we don’t try to convert or recruit; we don’t do anything other than ask that we, as minorities, are afforded the same rights as other minorities contesting against the majority. We ask to be treated like human beings, like citizens, with the same rights and protections as anyone else. We aren’t asking for superiority. We’re asking for equality.

That’s not an agenda. That’s long damned well overdue.

Hutcherson even thinks that the battle for civil rights for gays can’t be compared to the battle for civil rights for African-Americans…just because ex-gays exist, but ex-blacks don’t.

Just because a biological trait such as homosexuality isn’t physically apparent doesn’t mean that it’s any different from one that is, such as skin color. They share a common factor: they’re things we’re born into, not things we choose. Ex-gays haven’t really stopped being gay; they haven’t changed that biological trait. They’ve been conditioned to ignore it and act against it, and often are psychologically damaged as a result.

The comparison between the two struggles for civil rights is still quite apt. The prejudice against those who are different hasn’t changed; the tactics of discrimination have. Hutcherson wants to say they’re different because homosexuals were never forced to ride in the back of a bus; blacks were never sent to ex-black camps and mentally reconditioned to think they aren’t black, either. It doesn’t change the fact that both minority groups have been discriminated against, denied rights and privileges, abused, and ostracized in the past - and both still are now. Both are treated as less than human; there was a time when being black was viewed as a perversion, an abomination in the eyes of God, and black people were somehow less than human. Isn’t that how homosexuals are treated now? We’re told that we’re sick, we’re sinners, we’re filthy in the eyes of a God that loves and welcomes anyone but us, that views us as little more than rutting animals.

Hutcherson wants to use the race card to play up the struggle of African Americans for equality as somehow superior, morally above the struggle for GBLTQ equality. It’s not. They are the same, and equally deserving of consideration.

We’re all the same. If people could realize that, we wouldn’t even have these arguments.

no style, gay comics, webcomics, humor, gay comic strip, microsoft, gbltq rights, lgbt rights, gay and lesbian equality, workplace equality, reverend ken hutcherson, gay-straight alliance in okeechobee florida, thanksgiving, native americans

Lyndsey had her rant about this yesterday; I suppose today it’s my turn, ’cause we done gone and done it, kids. ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act intended to protect people from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity, has passed the House - without the trans-inclusive language.

And according to surveys, the majority of us are all right with that.

Do you know what the LGBT community (oh, excuse me - the LGB community) just did?

We just pulled a W.

That’s right, we took a page out of the rulebook of the man that many of us despise as one of the worst presidents in the history of our nation.

Remember “No Child Left Behind”?

Uh-huh.

Now remember the recent presidential veto of a bill that would have provided healthcare for thousands of children who don’t currently receive care?

…how many children do you think were left behind there, hm?

So what happened to our solidarity? What happened to human rights and civil rights organizations, LGBT/GBLTQ foundations, lawmakers, representatives, lobbyists, all so loudly protesting the removal of trans-inclusive language from ENDA? Somewhere along the way it died down to an abrupt and pathetic murmur, and the T in LGBT got left behind while the rest of us sailed on merrily ahead. I know we’re all tired of having to fight for every last tiny thing we get, but is that any reason to roll over and show our bellies and accept the little table scraps we’re given with hardly a fight?

Are we really so selfish that we’re willing to say, “Well, let’s just take it this time and make sure we’re covered, and we’ll worry about the transpeople later”?

Not acceptable, people. Not acceptable. There’s a reason we call ourselves the GBLTQ/LGBT community - because we are a community, no matter how much we snipe at each other from within. It’s like family; you may not always like each other, but you pull together in the end and support each other even if you don’t always approve of each other.

There comes a time when you have to pick your battles, and be satisfied with the small victories. This is not one of those times. If we start letting transpeople be pushed aside…

…who’s next?

ENDA, employment non-discrimination act, GENDA, workplace protections, house of representatives, house speaker nancy pelosi, transgender, transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, crossdressing, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, male-to-female, female-to-male, gender identity, gender dysphoria, transition, transitioning, sex change

I probably shouldn’t be doing an “Ask Adri” column in my current mood. You can’t see me right now, but I’m making my pain face. Why? Because I’m in pain. I don’t know what I did to my right arm yesterday, but I woke up this morning feeling as if a few members of the WWE had been using it as an illegal blunt object in the ring. With it still attached to my body. So I’m kind of cranky. But the news is alternately boring me or pissing me off with arseheaded reports that now the LGBT community is pushing for a non-trans-inclusive ENDA (what the hell happened to solidarity, people? I bet we wouldn’t be so willing to ditch them if it was the G or L getting left out), and this letter’s been sitting in my inbox for a couple of weeks now, so I really shouldn’t neglect it any longer. (Also, to two people who e-mailed me asking for private responses: I’m not ignoring you. You’ll hear from me some time tomorrow.)

Hello Adrien.

I am 37/gwm/FL. [Note from Adri for those who don't do netspeak: He's a 37-year-old gay white male who lives in Florida.] My wife and I have three lovely children. I am gay. I knew I was gay when I married her but I thought I could live a normal married straight life. I have been happy with my children and I love my wife, but I am very unhappy with myself. I can no longer pretend attraction to my wife and would like to explore my homosexual side. I do not want her to find out. I would like to have a relationship on the side with another man. How can I meet men without coming out publicly? We live in a small town and if I go to the gay bars nearby I will be recognized. Someone will tell my wife. I need to meet a man who can be discreet. Can you tell me how I can do this?

Sincerely,
Frustrated Florida Fag

Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute. Hold up and slow your roll, Holmes. Are you asking me to help you figure out the best way to cheat on your wife with other men?

Oh, I don’t think so.

Let me tell you something, son. You are going to do this right, rather than in the way that’s the most comfortable for you. You are going to inform your wife, properly and politely, of this particular turn of events in your life. You are going to take responsibility for the years of your marriage, and you are going to make this as easy for her as possible, because none of this is her fault and she’s going to feel hurt and betrayed, almost as much as she would if she caught you cheating. I know this isn’t easy for you, either, and I feel for you, I really do - as while some of this situation is your fault, not all of it is. But you are not going to make it worse by being a reprehensible human being and sneaking around behind your wife’s back like a dog, do you hear me?

You and your wife are going to talk about this. She may leave you, but for the sake of your children, she may not. If she stays with your sorry behind, she may even be willing to come to an agreement. You stay married as parents, but not as sexual partners, and then with her permission you can slip around on the sly all you want as long as you don’t bring your sexual partners home and trip the kids off as to what’s going on. It’s not an ideal situation, and later when the children are older and not as likely to be affected emotionally by their parents breaking up (for whatever reason, sexuality has little to do with how kids are affected by divorce), they will need to be told the truth. Frankly I don’t like the idea of hiding your sexuality from your kids, but it would just be too confusing for them to understand, in their formative years, why Mommy and Daddy have separate bedrooms and Daddy brings men home to spend the night.

And you know what? Your wife may take the kids and leave you. There’ll be a custody hearing; it may be ugly, it may not, but as long as you’re not declared unfit then you’ll get to spend plenty of equal time with your kids. You can even come out publicly and explain a few things to your kids, about how Daddy is gay but Daddy’s still Daddy and still loves them, supports them, etc. - and yes Daddy still loves Mommy, just not in certain ways.

Or you can stomp down your urges, stay miserably in the closet, and keep your family exactly the way it is. It’s an unfortunate situation, and there is no easy answer, no right answer, and no answer that’s going to make everyone happy.

Except you screwing around behind your wife’s back, and that you will not do. Not with my help, anyway. When you get caught, I want no part of this.

And you will get caught. Men always do; I know this from experience, not from cheating myself, but from dealing with cheating men from ex-boyfriends to my own father. You always get caught.

And when you get caught, those hot messes that I described above will be ten times worse.

So just don’t do it.

I know I was a little stern there. You needed it. You need a hard look at the reality of what your decision entails, from an outside perspective. This entire time you’ve probably been focusing on your own misery, and your own potential happiness. When you create a family, you can’t just think of yourself alone anymore. Your decisions deeply affect other people, and you have to consider that before every choice you make. I know you feel trapped by a decision you made years ago, and wish you could go back and undo it. You can’t. Unfortunately, part of adult life is living with the consequences of your past actions, and sometimes there just isn’t a way to wipe the slate clean and start over blameless.

Unless you’re Catholic, but don’t even get me started on that.

Despite my harsh words, I do wish you the best, and I hope that the difficulties along the road ahead are eased by mutual understanding between you and your family. You have a lot of tough choices to make. Good luck with them all.

See this? This is my problem with the whole “sanctity of marriage” crap. Heterosexual marriages break up all the time, for just about any reason; it’s not uncommon for someone to go through two or three spouses on average in their lifetime. How sacred were those marriage vows again?

But this situation in particular, oh, this one gets under my skin. If homosexual marriages were acceptable and legal, this man might not have felt the need to get into a heterosexual relationship and later marriage, in order to conform to the pressures to live the picture of the societal norm. He might have married a man and lived happily ever after, while the woman who - in this alternate future - is not his wife would have married a different man and moved on to have several fat, shiny babies. Instead we’ve got a tangled mess in which the husband is miserable, the wife is oblivious and just waiting for the other shoe to drop, and the children could very possibly have a previously happy home torn apart.

Oh, but that marriage is between a man and a woman, so hey, it’s just fine.

George W. Bush, you can suck my middle finger.

Have a question you’d like to see answered on Ask Adri? E-mail your question to adrien-luc.sanders@451press.net with the subject “Ask Adri Question” or use the Contact Form to send your question in.

ask adri, gay advice column, coming out, sanctity of marriage, gay marriage, heterosexual marriage, ENDA

This article doesn’t really discuss anything that isn’t evident to anyone with eyes and common sense, but it does bring up some points that I’ve touched upon before and would like to discuss again.

Study: Gay Couples Becoming More Visible in U.S. - KCBS

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) — The number of declared same-sex couples in the United States has quadrupled in the last 17 years, according to a recently released UCLA study.

Demographer Dr. Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School says the spike is due to growing acceptance around the country, and more couples willing to self identify. The analysis of census data shows the number of gay couples jumped the most in conservative states.

“We looked back at election results from the 1992 election and basically places that voted for George Bush Sr. had the biggest increases. Places that voted for Bill Clinton had the smallest increases,” said Gates.

He added that the numbers could be an indication that gay couples are becoming more mainstream and their homosexuality is perceived by the public as part of who they are, rather than their entire identity.

I have another theory behind the increase. I don’t think it’s right to the point of invalidating the reasons presupposed in the article, but I think the overall effect seen could be a combined result of all these varying factors.

I think, frankly, that we’re sick of hiding. The atmosphere of fear fostered in the homosexual community, that constant wariness of discovery and its repercussions, begins to wear on you when you live in a nation where, frankly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone should be judged for something as basic as their sexuality. People will accept BDSM before they’ll accept homosexuality. It’s enough to eat at the nerves until the sheer idiocy of the contrast can quite easily rouse a defiance that could make just about anyone stand up and say, “I am gay. That doesn’t change that I’m your neighbor, your coworker, your tennis partner, the guy who took the photos at your wedding, the girl who watches your kids until you get home from work in the evenings. You accept me as all of those things; integrate my sexuality into that picture, accept it as something as normal as the brand of tennis balls I prefer, and get over it.”

I’ve often ranted on the subject of blatantly blaring one’s sexuality in a desire for acceptance and acknowledgment. It can foster a perception of the GBLTQ community as obnoxious people who only identify as gay without a single other defining personality trait. For some people, that is their life. But for the rest of us…we’re just like the people described in that article. We don’t want to be known as “that gay guy” or “that lesbian” or “that transgender”. We speak loudly now because we ask, we beg to be acknowledged, but in the end we want that acknowledgment to be quiet, calm, as part of everyday life as we ourselves are. We want to be able to say “my husband” of a same-sex partner in a conversation without stirring a ripple. We want to be able to live our lives openly, without loud proclamations but without making any effort to hide. We want to be able to walk down the street in our suburb, holding hands with our boyfriend or girlfriend, and not draw any more notice than a mother pushing her child in a stroller.

I want to still always be known as “that writer” - that guy who’s trying to get a book published, and maybe in my dreams one day I’ll be known as that bestselling author. That misanthropic, whimsical, batty hermit who can do four loads of laundry separated by “whites” and “blacks” with not even one color load. That guy who makes bad jokes about his mixed ethnicity. That guy who’s always got a book with him, no matter where he goes. That socially awkward guy who pretends to be witty and well-spoken in text, but who trips over his tongue with hideous, blushing shyness when he actually has to talk to people other than his close friends face-to-face. That somewhat lonely guy who wonders if he’ll ever be able to put aside his pessimistic pragmatism to commit to a relationship beyond the bounds of practicality.

That guy who, appended to all of that, just happens to be gay. That guy whose sexuality is but a nuance that adds a shade to that overall tapestry, but doesn’t color it entirely…but who doesn’t have to paint over that color with another for fear of offending anyone’s sensibilities, either.

I want to be just Adrien, and not have to fear that my nation’s politics and prejudices will condemn the many aspects of who that is.

coming out, gay visibility, gay couples, coming out

This morning I had trouble choosing between news topics to ramble about, and finally just gave up and decided to touch briefly on the ones that caught my interest/amused me/outraged me the most. This is going to be a long one, I suppose. So without further ado:

GOP State Rep Resigns Amid Sex Scandal - Associated Press

Remember when I asked who’d be next among the noisy right-wing anti-gay GOPs to get caught with his pants down and a you-know-what replacing the foot in his mouth? Turns out it’s Washington state Rep. Richard Curtis, who’s voted against gay rights legislation in the past and yet who apparently has no problem having sex with strange men he meets in erotic video stores…and then telling the press about it.

Now granted, this was while telling the press about an attempt the man (Cody Castagna) made to blackmail him, but Curtis might have wanted to choose his words more carefully when detailing the attempt. Might he be innocent? Possibly. Do I think he is? After the latest string of scandals, it’s hard to say. This could just be an attempt by a gold-digger to capitalize on the scandals plaguing the right-wing and cash in at yet another representative’s expense, and Curtis’s admission is actually just a result of poor phrasing.

And it could just be another hypocritical conservative trying to cover his butt, too.

I went to a Catholic school as a child, up until third grade or so. I remember in kindergarten the school staged a play that involved a great number of us dressed up as barn animals and singing. I don’t remember what the play was about, and while I still have the videotape of it, I don’t think my self-esteem could survive watching it to refresh my memory. I do, however, remember that I was cast as the donkey amidst constant teasing that it’s suitable because I’m stubborn as a mule. (Or, now that I’m older, you could just say because I’m an a**.)

I also remember - and now we get to the point of this humiliating little anecdote - that one of the closing musical numbers involved all of the children lining up to sing, “I don’t wanna be a hyyyyyypocrite! ’cause they’re too hip to it!” with the associated and expected hip motions involved to emphasize. I also remember MawMaw White (yes, MawMaw, not MaMa) smacking the crap out of us with wooden cooking spoons if we a.) got it wrong or b.) did anything hypocritical.

I’m not even a Christian anymore, haven’t been for as long as I can remember, but I do still have a major problem with hypocrisy. The lesson was drilled into me early, and drilled into me hard. Maybe a few of these hypocritical politicians need to spend a humiliating few hours dancing around on stage in a donkey suit while a crazy old woman with a wooden cooking spoon stands threateningly over them. That alone could be punishment enough for not practicing what they preach, and I’ll bet they’d remember the lesson for a long time.

At least Curtis had the good grace to resign.

Phelps Clan Ordered To Pay $11M In Anti-Gay Military Suit - 365gay.com

Please allow me a moment of hysterical, maliciously cackling laughter.

…

Okay, okay. [wipes tears of mirth from his eyes] I’m done.

No, wait, no I’m not. [dissolves into snickers]

…okay, now I’m done.

You just don’t know how it made my day to see Phelps and his cadre of loonies getting what they deserved for their insane and cruel actions. In this case they’re being punished for picketing the funeral of a soldier killed in the Iraq war:

(Baltimore, Maryland) A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Snyder’s attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount “that says don’t do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again.”

Yes. And I say it again, in all caps, YES. These people have set a wonderful example that I hope others follow. It’s not even about financially punishing Phelps and WBC. It’s about making them see that their brand of intolerance, their brand of hatefulness, is beyond inhuman and will not be tolerated by the people that they inflict themselves upon. I hope others follow suit, and make it quite clear to Phelps that he and his kind are not welcome.

Of course, he’ll probably just say that he’s the next Noah, the only true believer who’ll be spared when God destroys the world with fire…

Kucinich questions Bush’s mental health over Iran - Reuters

This isn’t really topical, but it gave me another good giggle anyway. When a man who claims to have seen a UFO questions your mental stability, you’ve got problems:

WASHINGTON, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday mockingly questioned President George W. Bush’s mental health for saying Iran’s nuclear ambitions might trigger World War III.

“I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health,” Kucinich, a quirky, long-shot candidate in the race for his party’s presidential nomination in the November, 2008 election. “There’s something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact.”

[...]He told The Inquirer he did not believe his remarks about Bush’s mental stability were irresponsible. “You cannot be a president of the United States who’s wanton in his expression of violence,” Kucinich said. “There’s a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn’t something wrong with him, then there’s something wrong with us. This, to me, is a very serious question.”

Amen, man, amen. You may be a little off your nut yourself, but you make a good point. It’s well-known that Bush’s own staff have questioned his stability under stress as far back as his first term, and pondered if he was back on the sauce. At this point it’s just a lost cause. We’ve got one year left to wait it out, and hope he doesn’t push any disastrous big red buttons. Then Laura can drag him off to the ranch and let him be as violent and disassociative (I really think the man has problems grasping reality) as he wants to be, out of the public eye.

Lastly, on another non-gay-related topic, Sihaya sent me this link regarding University of Delaware students and “ideological reeducation”, followed by the University’s rebuttal. There’s a grain of truth somewhere in a middle ground between the two, I’m sure; I’ll let you draw your own conclusions. Thanks for the link, Sihaya.

Sorry I was a little behind in updating today (I usually like to write my articles the night before or wake up good and early to get them up before six a.m.); last night I crashed and let myself sleep in for once. I may be a little erratic on updating early in the mornings this month anyway, though unless hell freezes over I’ll still be posting an update every weekday. I’m doing NaNoWriMo this month, using it as a kickstart to get through the majority of my second novel without procrastinating, and that’s going to be dominating my writing schedule every day. If any of you are doing NaNo and want to keep track of each other on the way through, post your profile link in the comments. I’m Deadsong on the NaNo site. Good luck to you if you are participating.

And to everyone: I’ll see you tomorrow.

Washington state representative Richard Curtis, gay sex scandal, extortion, Cody Castagna, GOP, Maryland judgment, Phelps lawsuit, Albert Snyder, Matthew Snyder, funeral protests, Fred Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Christian protests, anti-gay protests, Westboro Baptist Church, WBC, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, president George W. Bush, mental stability, University of Delaware, ideological reeducation

I admit to being charmed by Barack Obama. His charm is one of his many assets, and it’s the reason he’s been pegged as the next John F. Kennedy. Part of that charm, however, is a certain boyish naivete that, while endearing, does little to reassure the shrewd voter that he knows what he’s doing, has a solid and well-grounded foundation, and will be able to lead with a clear and calm head. His statements give one cause to wonder if he even knows where he stands on certain issues, but it’s his actions in regards to the GBLTQ community right now that give me pause for concern.

Ex-Gay Gospel Singer a Hit at Obama Event Despite Controversy - GayWired.com

To many gays and lesbians, ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin was one of the last entertainers they would have liked to see headlining Barack Obama’s “Embrace the Change” concert tour of the South.

Those who attended last night’s stop in Columbia, S.C., however, must have thought the complete opposite, as they reportedly leaped from their seats when McClurkin strode on stage.

“We’re here,” the singer told the crowd, estimated to be 2,000-strong, according to the Associated Press. “We’re here and we’re glad we’re here.”

McClurkin got through the evening without mentioning the controversy he brought to the event and to Obama’s campaign. That is, until the concert’s final 60 minutes.

According to the Washington Post, McClurkin approached the subject subtly before launching into a full-on plea to those in the crowd.

“I just said yes,” he said of the invitation he received from the Obama campaign. “I didn’t know so much was going to happen,” the Washington Post reported. “I didn’t know my yes was going to mean I was misunderstood and vilified. .. . Sometimes people can take your words and do this with them,” he said while making a twisting motion with his hands.

Mr. Obama, do you know what the phrase “birds of a feather flock together” means? I can assure you that millions of voting Americans do, and that assumption will carry more weight with the general populace than your half-hearted protests. Even if you have your reasons for including an ex-gay minister in your gospel tour, you are a public figure and your image is, unfortunately, very important to your presidential campaign. For you to ignore that displays an astonishing lack of foresight. Were you making a stand on something unpopular and controversial and sticking to your guns despite what it might do to your reputation, I might understand making a move that might alienate many of your otherwise supportive voters while gaining the vote of many more.

This isn’t such an issue, though. This is a muddled middle ground in which you seemed more concerned with courting the votes of your African-American supporters with the inclusion of a gospel minister than you were with alienating your GBLTQ supporters by your association with an ex-gay minister. Being the unimportant smaller margin doesn’t feel good, Mr. Obama. It doesn’t win votes. And it can’t be appeased by a perfunctory conciliatory statement made by bland, impersonal press release; if it could, we wouldn’t be actively protesting your involvement with McClurkin, no matter how incidental.

Is this political suicide? Hardly. It’s an issue, and an uncomfortable one, but not so grievous an error as to cause a scandal.

But has it tarnished the lustre of Barack Obama’s boyish charm? Most certainly. The boy scout’s halo is slipping just a little, and while this slur might be set aside for the day, it won’t be easily forgotten.

democratic presidential candidate barack obama, ex-gay minister donnie mcclurkin, embrace the change gospel tour

Passing out for a while…really didn’t make me feel any better, unfortunately. I’m really not feeling up to one of my usual dissertations today, so I’m just going to leave you guys with some links to a few points of interest for the day. Sorry, guys. Hopefully a weekend’s rest will fix everything.

Song Links Saggy Pants to Being Gay: Although this is horribly homophobic and of course assumes that being identified as gay because your arse is hanging out (and apparently on offer), this still cracks me up. It’s part of a citywide campaign to stop “saggin’”, a fashion faux paus that’s been around for years: wearing your pants practically around your knees. The whole thing’s just ridiculous, honestly - that anyone would wear their pants that way, and that anyone would use slurs on sexuality to try to get them to stop.

Florida Prison Guards Disciplined for Allowing “Gay Wedding”: Officiate a fake lesbian inmate wedding that is in no way legally binding, and lose your job. No, I’m serious. Just because two lesbian inmates staged a fake wedding, the guards who allowed and witnessed it were either fired, resigned, or suspended. Not only that, but the women were separated, with one sent to another facility. Am I the only one who thinks that’s a little much? It’s not like they staged a riot, and prisons put on various inmate performances all the time, such as plays and talent shows (and reenactments of Thriller…). If they wanted, they could look at this as another inmate group activity, rather than flipping their sh*t and punishing people so broadly for something that basically has no effect anyway and didn’t place those gathered at any more risk than other group activities. Last I checked, few prison guards had the power of ordained priests anyway.

Gay Baby Creates Controversy in Italy: This one is my favorite out of the lot for today. I don’t know if you remember when Sihaya sent in an Ask Adri question regarding shock advertising and some interesting ad campaigns shown in Europe, but this is the latest in one such campaign: a newborn child with “HOMOSEXUAL” stamped on its wristband instead of the usual birth information. The poster was widely circulated in Tuscany, Italy as an effort to promote activism and awareness of discrimination. Personally, I love it. I think it’s striking, compelling, and gets a very clear point across. The people of Tuscany…not so impressed. Even gay activists there think it’s over the top. What do you think?

More Toddlers Infected With HIV In Kyrgyzstan Scandal: On a more serious front…the latest in the mess in Kyrgyzstan involving hospital staff accidentally infecting people with HIV has gone so far as to affect 2-and-3-year-old children with the disease, by transfusing them with tainted blood or injecting them with tainted needles. People have been fired over this, but that’s not going to fix anything for those children. Maybe they can be among the first to receive ready treatment from the latest HIV miracle therapy…but they’ll still be on medication for the rest of their lives.

Update on the comments contest

We are currently at 757 out 1,000 comments, leaving 243 to go. C’mon, guys, you can do better than that. (Or did I just offer crappy prizes? Maybe I should do another survey; that gets you guys talking…)

Oogh. Okay, sitting upright is getting to be problematic; I think it’s time to go curl up in bed with the rest of the day’s workload for my other job, try to plow through that, and then read my new book (hush, it’s a recaptured piece of my childhood) until I fall asleep. I’ll see you guys with a new comic on Monday; have a good weekend.

Ciao,
~Adri

Remember the discussions of ENDA and GENDA? Well, now there’s a new contender in the ring: DUMBARSE. That’s not really an acronym for anything, but in my current mood it was intensely satisfying to type that in all caps.

White House Warns Of ENDA Veto - 365Gay.com

(Washington) In its first statement on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would protect gays and lesbians in the workforce the White House said Tuesday the bill is likely unconstitutional and that if it passes in Congress the president’s senior aides would recommend vetoing it.

“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement.

The House is expected to vote on ENDA, along with an amendment that would extend protections to include gender identity on Wednesday.

The White House raised what it called two examples of how ENDA would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685. A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

The administration also said that ENDA was result in unnecessary litigation.

“For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on ‘perceived’ sexual orientation, or ‘association’ with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.”

In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA “give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”

[...] “It is shameful that the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto landmark legislation to end workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Fully qualified, capable Americans should never be denied a job or fired from a job for non-work related reasons,” Miller said.

“Basing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.”

[...]ENDA, as currently worded, would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee.

There are, however, some notable exceptions. It does not cover small businesses, churches and the uniformed members of the armed forces. The White House concerns suggest that ENDA could be used against faith-based agencies and to seek domestic partner benefits from employers. The threatened veto is the second against LGBT legislation before Congress. The other is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act.

[deep breath] Buckle in, kids; this is going to be a long one. I’m pissed, and I’m going to ramble. There are so many things in there that set me off that I don’t even know where to start, but I’ll try to pick and choose my points rather than going off on every little tangent.

“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement.

Here we run into a dilemma, my friends, and the very first thing in this article that raised my hackles. Despite being a full-blown atheist, a walking and talking godless heathen, I believe strongly in the freedom of religion. Hell, it’s part of what this nation was founded on. I believe in freedom of religion as part of every person’s personal freedoms, a right that should not be taken away from anyone as long as it isn’t harmful to other people.

But I don’t believe in exercising one’s religious freedoms in order to encourage discrimination. Freedom of religion should never come before basic human rights. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; we’ve lost sight of the separation of church and state in this nation, and all other human rights take a back seat to upholding religion. Neither faith nor religious institution should come before the protection of basic civil rights. Yes, religious freedom should be protected. But it should come second to civil rights for the GBLTQ community, or civil rights for any group that is discriminated against based on race, gender, sexuality, or other traits that are one’s birthright, not one’s choice. To say protecting the rights of our community is unconstitutional is like saying equal rights for African Americans is unconstitutional, or that the right for women to vote is unconstitutional.

Faith is a choice, people. People constantly label homosexuality as a lifestyle; it’s not. It’s a trait. Faith is a lifestyle. Faith is an adopted set of beliefs and a way of life that you choose to follow. So don’t discriminate against people for what they are because you’re trying to protect people for what they choose. Protect both, but get your freakin’ priorities straight.

The administration also said that ENDA was result in unnecessary litigation.

“For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on ‘perceived’ sexual orientation, or ‘association’ with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.”

That, right there, is the only valid argument I can see against passing ENDA - from their stance, anyway. If the language is ambiguous enough it’ll create more problems than it solves, and open up ground for frivolous lawsuits in absolute droves, from both sides of the spectrum. If that was the only reason for the threatened veto, I’d say “Fine, you’ve got a point. Go fix the thing and then run it through the wringer again, damn it.” But it’s not. Oh, no, it’s not, and here comes the one that got me really steaming.

In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA “give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”

….

…….

…………

Wave that torch a little higher, Shrubby.

“Sanctity of marriage”, my tarty little brown arse.

I loathe the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I always have. I think it’s an outdated, antiquated piece of filth that basically forces the religious views of a particular sector onto an entire nation, shielded by federal law. It goes against everything that “separation of church and state” stands for, by abusing the power of the state to enforce the power of the church, and it never should have been introduced in a modern age. It should not in any way be used as an argument against ENDA.

You know what? Maybe ENDA should be used against faith-based agencies that way. Maybe employers should be forced to recognize domestic partner benefits regardless of whether they’re a faith-based agency or not. I’m normally not a fan of aggression over diplomacy, but this is getting ridiculously out of hand. We’re constantly told that we should put aside our sexuality in the workplace, and therefore equal rights in the workplace and discrimination based on faith vs. sexuality shouldn’t affect us. Stay in the closet, pretty much.

Why don’t the people who protest our very existence get in their own damned closet? Why don’t they put their faith aside in the workplace in the same way they tell us to put our sexuality aside? If we don’t deserve equal consideration for who we are, why should they deserve equal consideration for their choices? Either we both win, or we both lose.

Or they can suck it up, we can come to a compromise, and we can have our basic human right to equality before they exercise their freedom in their choice of religion. It’s entirely unfair of them to wage their religious wars over our civil liberties.

Something’s got to give here.

And I’m getting damned sick of it being us.

ENDA, ENDA veto, employment non-discrimination act, GENDA, workplace protections, house of representatives, house speaker nancy pelosi, religious freedom restoration act, rfra, federal defense of marriage act, transgender, transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, crossdressing, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, male-to-female, female-to-male, gender identity, gender dysphoria, transition, transitioning, sex change

That’s right, today’s post deserves a cat-macro-ish title.

Del posted a link in a comment to yesterday’s post that was OT for the post, but perfect for a new post today. While I already discussed my take on it in the comments, I’d like to bring it up here for general discussion to get everyone else’s views on it as well as elaborate further myself now that I’ve had time to reread the article and think more on it. Here’s an excerpt:

Principal bans parents from pro-’gay’ seminar - WorldNetDaily
Public district students offered guidance on being homosexual

Administrators at North Newton High School in Newton, Mass., have held a seminar for students that explained how to know they are homosexual, but banned parents from attending.

“It’s absolutely insane,” parent Brian Camenker, who also is chief of the Mass Resistance organization, said. “I met with the principal. She told me no parents are allowed. She said only by invitation. I asked, ‘Can I be invited.’ She said, ‘No.’”

The event, called “ToBeGlad Day,” was the school’s “Transgender Bisexual Gay Lesbian Awareness Day,” and students were given a pamphlet that explains what it means to be “gay,” tells students how they are supposed to know if they are “gay,” and responds to the question, “Will I ever have sex?”

News of the event comes just a day after WND reported on a case at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., where school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

“This is very, very scary stuff,” Camenker said. “The pamphlet also lists places kids can go to meet homosexuals. How would something like this affect a kid who might be going through a confused and vulnerable time in his life? Well … the school isn’t interested in what YOU think.”

The Newton principal, Jennifer Price, didn’t return a message WND left seeking a comment on the event.

Now, WND has a reputation for right-wing sensationalism and craziness on the levels of Fred Phelps, right down to the same wild speculation and biased accusations.

That said…there’s something wrong when I actually understand a little of where they’re coming from - even if I doubt the accuracy of their reported facts.

I don’t have any children of my own, but I’ve been in the role of the parent. I have a half-brother eighteen years my junior, from my father’s second marriage; I stayed with my father for a short while after university while I found a job so I could move out on my own, and during that time guess who took on the full-time role of parent while my father was at work and my stepmother was being useless parked in front of the Home Shopping Network? That’s right, me. Hell, to this day I’m the only one who can get the kid to clean his room, even if I have to do it long-distance.

If my little brother came home and told me that the school had him attend a mandatory seminar on homosexuality without my prior knowledge or told me they were holding a seminar but I wasn’t allowed to attend unless invited (I’m not going to get into the whole “deliberately hiding it from the parents” thing, as I doubt the accuracy of that), I’d be righteously pissed - and I’m gay.

It’s not the subject matter. It’s that the school would be choosing to educate a child that I helped raised on their view of sexuality without my prior notice, and without me knowing what’s being taught. It’s almost impossible to teach anything regarding human sexuality without bias in today’s political and social climate. Even worse, anything involving “no parents allowed” is going to make me nervous, because…well, what are they trying to hide? I don’t know if the children are being told that homosexuality is wrong, that it’s right, or that it’s a figment of their imaginations. Parents are very protective of their children, and are going to get their hackles in a bunch if you start taking control out of their hands that way. Showing an educational video in class is one thing; this is something wholly different.

I prefer to treat situations like this the way sex ed was treated in my high school. Parents were notified about the sex ed portion of the school year ahead of time, given pamphlets explaining the material that would be covered, and given permission slips granting their child permission to take the class. Most parents sign the permission slip and say “Go on, son, go learn about safe sex and STDs and the reproductive cycle. If you have any questions later, ask me, we’ll sort it out.” Some people don’t agree with what’s taught, or would rather teach their children themselves. They don’t sign the permission slip, and the kids sit out in study hall. The choice is there, giving parents control over how their children are raised.

It’s a noble idea to try to indoctrinate children into understanding and accepting homosexuality in themselves and in others. But if even a fraction of that article is true, then the schools mentioned went about it in entirely the wrong way. It’s basically taking advantage of a captive audience to push your agenda, and how the hell does that set a good example? This is the wrong political climate for that. Give us a decade or more of progress and tolerance and such educational assemblies might even become a mandatory standard, something I’d actually like to see. But right now? It doesn’t take a genius to see that taking that route is just asking for trouble and adding to the negative publicity we already get. How much common sense does it take to understand the concepts of tact, consideration, subtlety, and the old “slow and steady” adage?

Ur doin it rong.

And thanks for the link, Del.

sex education, homosexuality, education on homosexuality, newton north high school, newton massachussets

After the heaviness of yesterday, let’s lean towards something a little less serious but no less thought-provoking. For a little side tangent on the geek front first, the other day Lyndsey sent me an article about human/robot relationships that makes me wonder if it’ll be legal to marry a robot before it’ll be legal to marry a member of the same sex.

Second, the NY Times provides a short-but-sweet article that strains the bounds of credibility:

Vatican City: Priest in Gay Sting an ‘Exception’ - NY Times

A leading cardinal described as an “isolated case” a 60-year-old Vatican official caught on a hidden television camera declaring himself gay and making sexual advances to a younger man. The cardinal, Julián Herranz, head of the Vatican’s disciplinary committee, told the newspaper La Repubblica that such cases cause “sadness, assuredly, but we are aware that these cases are exceptions.” The Vatican official, Msgr. Tommaso Stenico of the Congregation of the Clergy, was suspended last week after being filmed for a program shown on Italian television. He denied that he was gay, called the filming “a trap” and said he was only pretending to be gay to gather information about “those who damage the image of the church with homosexual activity.”

I don’t think anyone’s buying yet another tired old “I’m not gay, really, I was just pretending, it was a trap!” excuse. We’ve heard it all, from “I was trying to see if someone else is gay!” to “I’m not gay, I’m just scared of black people!” My interest in this involves the spin people can put on it. What we have is an elderly man making inappropriate advances on someone who’s likely a parishioner, not only abusing his position but also - depending on the age of the “younger man” - attempting to make sexual contact with a minor. This is obviously a rather flawed individual. In your gut reaction - your very first knee-jerk response, not your later chosen response - how do you perceive his flaws?

(a.) Solely a part of him and his own responsibility;
(b.) Reflecting on his Church and its doctrines;
(c.) Reflecting on homosexuality and the nature of homosexuals.

I’m going to be honest and admit a flaw of my own here: my first thoughtless, biased, instinctive reaction was b, and I’m not proud of that. I’ve let the actions of certain branches of the Christian church towards the homosexual community taint my perception of their Church as a whole, and my immediate response was that his immoral behavior was a direct result of hypocrisy running rampant in the Christian church. Someone else equally tainted by the actions of a few less-than-stellar representatives of the gay community might say that his immoral behavior was a result of the immorality of homosexuality overall.

It’s hard to admit that you have those kind of prejudices when you’re supposed to be an advocate of tolerance. I’m human. I’m flawed. I’m subjective by nature, objective by choice, and I can’t always be the latter. I am not, however, using that as an excuse. I made myself stop and look at the situation again, and push my prejudices aside to recognize that the actions of one man, whether immoral or simply unfortunate, were the responsibility of no one but that single man - just as my own inherent prejudices are no one’s responsibility but my own.

It’s a little disturbing, the things that make you realize that you aren’t quite as open-minded as you’d like to think, even if you’re working on it. I think sometimes those of us who stand on this side of things often don’t quite realize that we’re turning the prejudices and hatred thrown at us around and flinging it right back, often unfairly and unjustly. We like to point the finger, but we don’t always point it in the right direction.

So which way was your finger pointing?

human-robot relationships, tommaso stenico, julian herranz, gay clergy, gay priest, vatican

I just read something that wholly sickened me; the only reason I’m not crying right now is because I don’t want to become the next Chris Crocker. I need to stop and take a deep breath before I say anything else. While I do that, I’ll let the article I read speak for itself. I can promise you that it speaks loudly, and quite clearly.

Uganda Cleric Calls for Annihilation of Gays - 365Gay.com

Uganda’s leading Muslim cleric has proposed to President Yoweri Museveni that gays be rounded up and marooned on an island in Lake Victoria until they die.

Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje told reporters of his plan following a much publicized meeting with Museveni.

“I asked President Museveni to get us an island on Lake Victoria and we take these homosexuals and they die out there,” Mubajje told a news conference.

“If they die there then we shall have no more homosexuals in the country.”

Others at the meeting reportedly said that the president did not respond to the suggestion.

Uganda outlaws male homosexuality, under laws originally imposed by the British colonizers in the nineteenth century. Offenders can face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment

Mubajje’s remarks follow similar threats by other Islamic leaders.

Recently, Muslim Tabliqh youth announced a plan to form an ‘Anti-Gay Squad’ to fight homosexuality in Uganda.

Before we invoke Godwin’s law, I want you to stop. I want you to read that again. Go read the full article. Read about the possibility that the Bush administration has even been funding groups that advocate violence against gays and and lesbians. And then I want you to put another demographic in the place of gays. If you, dear reader, are against gay rights, stumbling by here by some accident or here by purpose and by choice, then pick something else. Pick something that you love. Pick something that you feel strongly about. Pick something that you would fight for, damn you, and then say it again.

Pick women’s rights. Conservative values. Separation of church and state. Hispanic rights. African-American rights. Ending world hunger and poverty. Transgender rights. Breast cancer. HIV/AIDs. Freedom of speech. Pick anything you want, anyone who’s ever had someone speak out against them. Pick someone that you’ve spoken out against, perhaps violently, perhaps quietly.

Say it again.

Say it about the inalienable human right that you hold nearest and dearest to your heart, and then tell me - tell me how you feel.

“If they die there then we shall have no more homosexuals in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more feminists in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more of the terminally ill in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more Hispanics in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more blacks in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more Jews in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more impoverished in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more atheists in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more Christians in the country.”

Do you feel that? That clenching in your chest, that sickness in your throat? Can you say those words out loud and remain unaffected? And so - is it then acceptable to say this of homosexuals, as if we’re somehow animals to be dragged out into the street and shot? How would Mubajje feel if we said this about his sect, if we treated him the same way?

You can say I shouldn’t care about this because I don’t live in Uganda. His fanaticism, his hatred cannot harm me. I’m in no danger of being left to die on an island in Lake Victoria simply for who I am, who I love. But I understand something that Mubajje apparently doesn’t: we are all connected. Even more, we are all people, all human, with the same needs and rights - and that ties us irrevocably together. Every prejudice that you have can be turned back on you in some way. We are all diverse parts of a whole and that whole is always in contention with itself. When you turn your hatred on others, you blind yourself in your righteousness. When you turn your hatred on others, you turn your hatred on that whole, and thus turn your hatred on yourself.

For that reason, I wish I could speak to Mubajje. I wish I could ask him to stop, and place himself in those words.

“If they die there then we shall have no more Muslims in the country.”

You don’t know a man until you walk a mile in his shoes.

So how would Mubajje feel about that?

Uganda, Muslim cleric Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, Muslim extremists, Muslim Tabliqh youth

Hooo…kaaaaay. My bad-news moratorium? Broken. I can’t keep quiet about this. I’ve been trying, for days. Days. It’s not working. I’m biting my tongue so hard it’s about to start bleeding.

Gays Banned But Military Recruits Increased Number Of Convicted Criminals - 365gay.com

(Washington) The Army last year again increased the number of its recruits who have prior criminal records by granting them special exceptions.

The Pentagon’s top personnel official defended the policy, saying it’s so stringent that many in Congress would have difficulty getting into the military today, too, because of things they did in their youth.

The military routinely grants waivers to recruits with past criminal behavior, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service.

In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 18 percent of recruits needed waivers for problems with the law - up from 15 percent the previous year, Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, told a Pentagon news conference. He said 87 percent of those were for misdemeanors such as joy riding or violating curfew. [...] [D]efense personnel head David S.C. Chu said the waiver policy, taken as a whole, is a tough one and takes into consideration the whole person and his or her future abilities, not just mistakes the person may have made in the past.

One question they are asked, he said, is whether they have ever used marijuana, even once. “If you answer ‘yes’ about one use … it requires a waiver. [...] That’s a pretty tough standard,” he said. “Not to be cheeky about this, but (if) we apply that standard to our legislative overseers, a significant fraction would need waivers to join the United States military.”

Think about that last statement. Think about it really hard. I think that should bloody tell you something, genius.

Right now I’m seeing two obvious interpretations on this, from my (admittedly annoyed and prone to snarly speculation) perspective:

1. “Even a barely-functioning idiot or convicted sex offender is better than one of those stinking fags; we don’t want those types in our armed forces.”
2. “Take the criminals and the ill first and use ‘em as cannon fodder. Best way to get ‘em out of the breeding population and if the military doesn’t straighten ‘em up and set ‘em right, then at least it’ll get rid of ‘em so they’re not a problem anymore.”

Either option? Not acceptable.

(You know, later when I stop fuming, I’m going to end up rolling my eyes at myself for framing those interpretations in such sensationalist language. Y’know, just so you know I’m aware of how bad I’m being. I’m starting to think sensationalism is a job requirement for working in news media, though so hey - I’m on the right track, right?)

How much more ridiculous is this going to get? If you have a criminal record, you get a special exception and you’re in. Hey, we do it for politicians, might as well do it for soldiers, right? And if you’re too stupid to follow orders and so clumsy you trip over your own bare feet, that’s fine, we’ll just put you on the front line and push you in the right direction. You’ll make a great shield for the other soldiers. Oh, what’s that, you’ve got a heart condition? Don’t worry, a stray bullet will kill you before your heart condition does. You’re in.

Not you, though. Yeah, you, over there. The guy in great shape who takes care of himself and doesn’t have a single medical condition. The brilliant engineer who can probably put his skills to good use keeping people alive on the front line. The guy with the spotless record who doesn’t even have a DUI. Yeah, you? You’re out. I saw you eyeing that other recruit’s butt. We don’t stand for that in our armed forces, buddy.

I’m starting to think the people who make these policies were given a few of those special exceptions for low aptitude scores.

Don’t get me wrong, I wholly approve of forgiving past mistakes for the sake of future potential; I made a lot of screwups in my younger years, and I’m still paying for them and dealing with their consequences. I’ve learned to be a more responsible person because of it. People grow up, people change, people get their sh*t straight and move on to do some great things. My problem is that potential hazards are being forgiven for the sake of meeting recruitment quotas, but harmless homosexuality is still an offense that will get you booted from the military.

Unbalanced? Yes. Idiotic?

Hell bloody yes.

On a closing tangent, the man I ranted about in the killing of Michael J. Sandy has been convicted of a hate crime despite his dubious plea that he, too, is gay. I only have one thing to say to that:

Damn straight, baby.

No pun intended, naturally.

Since it’s Friday I hate to end with a down note, so for a little humor I present you with something I yanked off my site metrics: the strangest term anyone has ever Googled to get to this site.

“New Jersey transsexual husband lesbian bread.”

That’s so weird it bears repeating.

“New Jersey transsexual husband lesbian…bread.”

Makes you wonder what they were really looking for, eh?

I’ll see you monsters and marvels on Monday with a new No Style, but for now it’s off to get through one more day of work so I can enjoy my weekend; hope you enjoy yours as well. Say it with me now: na-na-na-na-na-na-na, tequila!

gays in the military, gay servicemembers, anti-gay discrimination, don’t ask don’t tell, military recruitment, service exceptions, michael j. sandy, hate crimes, hate crime legislation, murder, john fox, ilya shurov, anthony fortunato, seth lieberman, gerald di chiara, homophobia

A brief bit of discussion on the delurking post from last week regarding an apparent minority of gay Republicans (who seemed surprised to discover each other here) made me start wondering about political orientation, sexuality, and how much the former is affected by the latter. There is a general assumption that most homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders will be far-left, very liberal, definitely Democrats whose major political hot button is always GBLTQ rights - but is that really true?

Out of curiosity I put together this quick ten-question survey for my readers here. I like learning about you guys (and gals, and everything outside and in between), and hearing about varying viewpoints from all over the rainbow spectrum – so if you could take just a minute to take this survey, I’d really appreciate it. You can answer with just the letters, or you can add your expanded views on each question; it’s up to you how much or how little you want to say.

Now I’m aware, due to the type of site that this is, that the general reader base is going to be a bit slanted in a certain direction - so the survey is more a sample of the general feelings of the GBLTQ community and its supporters. If, however, you have friends that don’t quite agree with you on GBLTQ issues and you think they’d be interested in the survey, feel free to send ‘em this way; I’d love to hear from them as well.

Enough out of me; on with the survey!

1. I am:
     (a) gay/lesbian
     (b) straight
     (c) bisexual
     (d) transgender
     (e) questioning/not really sure
     (f) asexual

2. My gender:
     (a) female (biological or MtF)
     (b) male (biological or FtM)
     (c) biologically intersexed
     (d) androgynous/genderqueer

3. My age:
     (a) Under 13 (what are you doing on this site, kiddo?)
     (b) 13-17
     (c) 18-25
     (d) 26-35
     (e) 36-45
     (f) 46 or older

4. My “out” status:
     (a) completely out of the closet
     (b) only out to some people
     (c) totally closeted
     (d) I already told you I’m straight, you daffy blighter.

5. My political affiliation is:
     (a) Republican
     (b) Democrat
     (c) Independent
     (d) Other (please specify)
     (e) Pointedly Disinterested (which gets caps because it’s a large
     enough faction to be its own party)

6. I consider myself:
     (a) very conservative
     (b) moderately conservative
     (c) a fence-straddler
     (d) moderately liberal
     (e) very liberal
     (f) I really can’t stand the terms “liberal” and “conservative”.

7. I plan to vote in the 2008 US Presidential election:
     (a) yes
     (b) no
     (c) only if a candidate I can really endorse is on the ballot
     (d) I’m not old enough to vote
     (e) I’m not a US citizen and don’t much care for your elections, aside
     from hoping you don’t do anything silly. Again.

8. I feel that my sexuality affects my political leanings:
     (a) only a little
     (b) only a lot
     (c) not at all

9. A candidate’s stance on GLBTQ issues affects my view of them:
     (a) very strongly
     (b) moderately
     (c) only a teensy bit
     (d) not at all

10. The political issue that I feel the most strongly about is ___________________. (No, this one’s not multiple choice. Fill in the blank, hm? I’m not going to assume what your issues might be. Feel free to elaborate as much as you want.)

---

If you don’t want to discuss your political views and sexuality openly, you can post anonymously; in the section of the comments field that asks for your name, just fill in “Anonymous” or “None of Your Business” or anything you want other than your own name or the name you use most commonly on the site. Also, if I left an answer off that you feel better applies to you than any of the options available, then write it in; if you want to address a related question that I didn’t ask, such as “Do you think party platforms make them more attractive to people of a certain sexuality?” or anything else, knock yourselves out. Feel free to discuss your responses with each other, or ask me any questions about mine. And if you’re wondering what my answers are:

 

1. a; 2. b; 3. d; 4. a; 5. c; 6. f; 7. a; 8. a; 9. b; 10. separation of church and state.

And I’m done for now. I may post again later today; I haven’t skimmed the news yet, so I don’t know if there’s anything in current events/gay life that I might find rant-worthy - though on an off-topic slant, some people might find this just a little infuriating (although I’ll leave any ranting on that to more qualified people, such as my various readers or April over at Her Daily News). In case I don’t post again, though…see ya’ll (yes, ya’ll, so shoot me for being Southern - at least I don’t have the accent) tomorrow.

~Adri

Edit: It’s been brought to my attention that in my sleepy thoughtlessness, I left “asexual” off the choices for sexuality. It’s on there now. Sorry for the oversight.

gbltq politics, lgbt politics, gay and lesbian politics, gay republicans, gay democrats, 2008 presidential elections, sexuality and politics

Finally get my computer up and running, get into my e-mail, and what do I find? A brand-new Ask Adri question waiting to be answered. (…well, that was a little self-evident. I’m Captain stinkin’ Obvious today.)

Dear Adri:

I am m2f (or i will be soon).. I want to start crossing. I have nice clothes but I don’t know how to shave my legs. I’m afraid to ask my girlfriends because I don’t want them to know yet. Can you help?

Sassy

Oh, honey, first thing I’m going to tell you is to put the razor down. You may have been shaving your face since you were sixteen, but trust me, shaving your legs and shaving your face are far different things - and have no doubt, the first time you’ll end up cutting yourself, giving yourself razor burn, and twisting in a dozen of the most uncomfortable positions trying to get into some obscure places you didn’t even know you had until you tried to shave them.

(Why yes, I do know this from experience, and no, I have no intentions of telling you just how I know this. Suffice to say that the negatives were burned, and we shall never speak of this again. Ever.)

Rather than shaving, you’d be much better off with a depilatory cream. (Avoid waxing unless you’re really that into pain. I don’t know how girls do that to themselves - I really don’t.) Most would recommend Nair or Neet, though I find that Nair stinks to high hell and both can leave a bit of a chemical-burn feeling behind even when leaving them on for the minimum amount of time, and they don’t remove all the hair - so you end up shaving anyway. Plus the consistency of male leg hair tends to be a bit different from female leg hair, so female shave products don’t always work for us - just as the mess we use to shave our faces doesn’t always work for them.

Stop looking at me like that. Yes, I know too much about this. Hush.

My personal recommendation is No Shave Liquid Depilatory, which you can buy from UnderGear. It’s designed to remove hair smoothly from the male body, although I recently bought it for use on my face and absolutely love it. As with any depilatory, though, you need to remember that you are dealing with chemicals here and you should definitely test it on a small area of your body first before slathering it all over your legs. Don’t want you coming out looking like an overcooked bucket of the Colonel’s Extra Crispy.

Good luck and sexy legs to ya, Miss Sassy.

Everyone else, seriously. Stop looking at me like that. It was one time. In college. Shaddup.

Have a question you’d like to see answered on Ask Adri? E-mail your question to adrien-luc.sanders@451press.net with the subject “Ask Adri Question” or use the Contact Form to send your question in.

Gay Republicans air anti-Romney Ad

Remember when I transcribed Mitt Romney’s creepy radio spot and spent a little time nitpicking it? Well, Romney’s own party has struck back from the rainbow quadrant with a lovely little TV spot:

 

Well…I wouldn’t really call that lovely, honestly. Actually, depending on how you’re listening, it sounds almost like it’s trying to sell Romney; according to the article, it’s highlighting Romney’s evolving stance on abortion. I don’t know. It’s just not very clear to me, and seems to have limited effectiveness. Don’t have much to say about it, really; guess it’s just too subtle for a blockhead like me. If you guys want to have a go at it, knock yourselves out.

Well, that’s it from me; I want to thank everyone who came out (no pun intended) in the delurking post and gave us all a chance to get to know you. The response (over 25 comments) was really a pleasant surprise.

Be back Monday with another No Style.

mitt romney, log cabin republicans,