Progressive. Queer. Feminist. Opinionated.

Monday, October 31, 2005


The People For the American Way (PFAW) have an info sheet up about Alito. It's here. (Warning: That's a PDF file).

Even the Associated Press is admitting that Alito is very conservative, and they've made reference to his nicknames, Scalito" and "Scalia-lite."

I'm really worried about this guy:

In 2001, Alito authored a decision in Saxe v. State that declared unconstitutional a public school district policy that prohibited harassment against students because of their sexual orientation or other characteristics, according to Lambda. The policy focused only on harassment that had the purpose or effect of interfering with a student's educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.

Nonetheless, Alito reasoned that the policy was unconstitutional because it could cover what he called "simple acts of teasing and name-calling." Many LGBT students report that they are subjected to verbal harassment; LGBT students are at heightened risk for dropping out of school because of harassment and discrimination. [link]

Update on Stroud

Remember Rev. Beth Stroud?

Stroud said in an interview earlier this year that she realized she was a lesbian while attending Bryn Mawr College. After graduating from Union Theological Seminary in New York City, she was ordained and assigned in 1999 as associate pastor of Philadelphia's First United Methodist Church of Germantown, Pennsylvania.

When I went to hear Stroud talk, I thought she was one of the most dedicated people I've ever heard. She truly loved the church and wanted to be a part of it.

She was defrocked by the highest court in the United Methodist Church today.

Bush's ethics approval rating lower than Clinton's!

Let me draw attention to this.

In my last post, I included a link that goes to this article: White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.


That's just funny.

The GOP knows where attention is needed

When your approval rating is at 39%, when your war is floundering, when your party is falling to pieces, when your people distrust you, when, well, the world seems to be falling down around your head, what do you do?

Go after the gays, of course!

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) announced Friday that the Senate Sub Committee on the Judiciary will meet on Nov. 2 to markup the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment.

Brownback, the sub committee chair, said he expects to hold a vote that day on the proposed amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, and then send the measure on to the full committee.

Brownback said that he hoped the amendment would come to a vote in both the full Senate and House prior to the 2006 mid term elections.

"This has been and always will be about cynical politics," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"Political games in Washington are common, but when the lives of millions of American families are at state, these hearings are an affront to American values."

Yes. This is what we need to be concentrating on right now. Protecting the country from same-sex monogamists. The terror! The horror!

Oh, excuse me. Is my bitter showing?

Down with anti-bully movements! Let the bullies reign!

When churches make a fit about how they plan to protest tolerance or unity activities, I'm always a little flabbergasted.

A group of Burlington pastors plan to launch an organized protest of a school-sponsored forum planned for Tuesday focusing on bullying and its affect on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. [link]

I understand when these churches speak out against gay rights, gay marriage, and gay role models. It's sad, but I understand what their argument is. But when you hear people saying, "Well, this anti-bully action can't be allowed to go on," I get a little confused.

The Reverand Steve Perkins of Saint John A-M-E Church says a group of pastors are opposed to focusing the attention on school safety for that specific group of students.

He says the fear is that if gay and lesbian students are singled out as a specially protected group, proponents of homosexuality will gain access to the hearts and minds of Burlington youth.

Riiiight. Let's not protect a group of children. Well said, Steve. Well said.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Trick or treat

It's my favorite time of year. To me, this is the best holiday-it combines eating sugar, wearing costumes, good movies, possibly lots of booze, and stuff I like (glitter, black nail polish, stripy tights) on sale Nov. 1st. I want there to be a song that says "it's beginning to look a lot like Halloween." I love it when I first start seeing stuff for sale, then the pumpkins and decorations appear in stores and at houses and around campus, and now we get to costumes.
I was thinking about costumes and women. There's this great part in "Mean Girls" about Halloween costumes, about girls being allowed to dress up really slutty and it being okay, and how girls wear these animal costumes that are all variations on the bunny costume-body suit of some kind (low cut) tail, ears. One girl is dressed as a mouse, and it is almost impossible to tell.
This year when shopping for costumes we saw that mouse costume.

Ok, in general the subject of dressing "slutty" is one I have issues with. The way I am built, shirts come in two sizes (that actually fit)-falling off my shoulders or tight across the chest. This means whenever I wear a fitted shirt, I am already automatically dressed in a way some people label as slutty. Beyond that, I like tank tops and short skirts and low waisted pants and whatever. I do this for me. It's the same reason I feel the need to wear pretty underwear every day even when I know for sure nobody will see it-it just makes me feel a little happier. And I hear a lot of comments about it not being comfortable to dress that way-like, in a literal, physical sense. And I think that is bull. Some girls (or guys) may not feel comfortable, but I do. I hate the way most jeans feel-it is rough fabric that rubs against my legs, when it gets wet it stays wet and when it is cold and your jeans aren't super tight, the fabric gets cold and makes you colder. I only like baggy jeans, soft pants, and skirts. A short skirt and warm tights is warmer in winter, and in summer I would rather wear a skirt than a pair of fitted shorts. I very rarely wear clothing I find uncomfortable. But people judge me and form ideas about me based on how I am dressed, and I realize this and am mostly okay with it. Like yes I would prefer for people to not think I am a slut [the issue of slut being bad I will leave for some other post], but if they care that much then they aren't people I'd be friends with anyways.
There's the only big party(parties) of the year tonight at our college. The all girls school girls will be dressed as skanky as possible in the name of being g in costume. On the one hand, I find it a bit revolting, and on the other hand I have always felt like a hypocrite for that. But I was thinking about tit more this year and I think my problem it is that these girls are the hypocrites. Not all of them, but if it is not okay the rest of the year, why tonight? If you claim to not be comfortable that way-don't dress that way, and if you are, then stop judging. I understand that Halloween is about being who you aren't, but when something is barely a costume, I draw a line. I don't know if this is unfair or not.
My other issue with the mouse costume was that it was for a young girl, maybe 11. And while I feel at 23 I should be able to wear whatever I want, I feel that children should not be dressed as sex objects. I don't care that it is Halloween.
So, I was feeling ranty about all this, but also a bit conflicted. It is sort of like tea freedom of speech issue. Yes I believe in it, but some people shouldn't be allowed to say certain things-particularly people who try to limit my freedom of
speech. But if we limit anyone's freedom of speech the whole concept is invalid.

I, by the way, am going to be a princess for Halloween. But Harper should post about our costumes, cuz it's her thesis.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Good Night and Good Luck

--- Or George Clooney Doesn't Have a Political Agenda...Why Would You Even Accuse Him of That?

I love George Clooney. He quietly goes about his business, both personal and political, and remains off the radar (aside from his delightfully shallow movies [Ocean's 11 *cough*]) until something pisses him off.

Something like...say Bill O'Lielly's stone-throwing from his marvelous abode of Amorphous Silicon Dioxide. My favorite bit from that little Celebrity (vs. "Celebrity") Spat is the part where George Clooney gets snarky on PBS.

But I digress...the movie.

The movie was directed and partially written by George Clooney (hence my comment about his Agenda). I liked that while he played a hero, he didn't write himself as The Hero (Ed Murrows). I also found it excellent that the movie was done in black and white. It gave the movie a certain authenticity; to be honest it had the same kind of feel as In Cold Blood --- not the murder bit, the creative narrative of the truth. I also liked that the clips of McCarthy were the real clips; no one played McCarthy. It's kind of mean to make people get into a character like that if you can avoid it I think.

The movie is also very detached, like the news reports. The emotional ups and downs are there, but there is a very obvious lack of the usual emotional wrenchings that dominate mainstream cinema.

Also, I like the modern political implications because I'm a rabid lefty.

I'm tired now, go watch it.


Holy shit!

George Takei, 'Trek's' Sulu: I'm gay

Perhaps you don't know how exciting this is for me. But I'm a geek, and so today is indeed a great day.

...ah, Dyke Squad. When every other blog is talking about indictments, we've got the most recent news for gay Trekkies.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

But replace Martina?! Never!

Got this through Page One Q...

I love it when jocks come out:

Basketball star Sheryl Swoopes, a three-time Olympic gold medalist and three-time MVP of the WNBA, has come out publicly as a lesbian, making her the highest-profile team sport athlete to come out while playing.

Swoopes, 34, has been hired as a spokeswoman for Olivia Cruises, which specializes in tour packages for lesbians. In connection with this, she is doing an extensive round of interviews with media outlets to talk about her decision to come out.

Swoopes told ESPN the magazine for their issue hitting newsstands Wednesday that she is "tired of having to hide my feelings about the person I care about."

Well done, Swoopes. We need more strong, capable lesbian role models.

Page One Q also links to this editorial:

This is big. Real big.

Sheryl Swoopes is the most decorated, biggest-name athlete in American team sports history to come out of the closet. Period. And that's not over-stating it. Along with Martina, she is, overnight, one of our two biggest name in sports.

To say the Michael Jordan of women's basketball just declared that she's a lesbian is no stretch. Swoopes won four consecutive league championships with the Houston Comets. She won her third league MVP award – more than anyone else – this past season. She is in the top five on the all-time WNBA playoffs lists for points, assists, steals and rebounds. She has won three Olympic gold medals. She was the college player of the year.

And, if all that's not enough, she has a Nike shoe called the Air Swoopes.

It's a really interesting article.

Can I tell you again how much I love lesbian atheletes? They're one of the things that makes the world go 'round.

Beth Stroud's upcoming trial

Can you tell it's a busy school year by my slowness in posting? I'm hardly complaining, but, my, senior year is busy.

While I'm on the topic of my college, Rev. Beth Stroud's trial is coming up.

The highest legal body in the United Methodist Church on Thursday will consider whether to permanently remove a Philadelphia area pastor from the clergy for being in a lesbian relationship.

The United Methodist Church accepts gay and lesbian ministers as long as they are celibate. But when the Rev. Beth Stroud publicly announced her sexuality to her congregation two years ago and said that she was in a long-term relationship her bishop said he was forced to start the defrocking process.

I had the opportunity to hear Rev. Stroud speak last year, and I can only wish her the best of luck. She's one of those people who really is right and at home in front of the pulpit, so I hope things turn out well for her in this trial.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Rosa Parks

Aw, shucks. Rosa Parks died.

Anything I say here won't be enough. So I won't say anything.

Wow, that's gay.

For all my mixed feelings about the show 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' as a commercial entity, a do like the gentlemen on the show. And one of them, Carson Kressley, has written a book to help young teens come out and "embrace their sexuality."

Kressley says, "Gay teens are three times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers. That was one of the reasons I wrote the book. [link]

The name of this book? You're Different and That's Super. It has a freakin' unicorn on the cover.

That. Is. So. Gay.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Good Merchandise and Howard Zinn

I'm sure none of you need an excuse to spend more money, but I found a site with very excellent merch.

POAC Store
is the shop kept by the people who run The Project for theOld American Century. POAC has their Principles and some other background up to read. In a nutshell, they are a group I would place on the far left (with crazy lil' ol' me) but even if you are not in agreement with their politics, they make some damn fine artwork. They sell some of the pieces (all in the style of old-fashioned war posters) on clothing, as prints or as magnets. Give it a look.

Here are some of my favorites:

Also, on a totally unrelated note, Howard Zinn (My historian boyfriend --- I'm losing so many butch points for admitting that) wrote a nifty article critiquing our current censensus judicial philosophy. Or, rather, politicians' judicial philosphy.

Even listening to pieces of Roberts's confirmation hearings was enough to induce despair: the joking with the candidate, the obvious signs that, whether Democrats or Republicans, these are all members of the same exclusive club. Roberts's proper "credentials," his "nice guy" demeanor, his insistence to the Judiciary Committee that he is not an "ideologue" (can you imagine anyone, even Robert Bork or Dick Cheney, admitting that he is an "ideologue"?) were clearly more important than his views on equality, justice, the rights of defendants, the war powers of the President. Read On.

He's shrewd and a good writer (I'm reading his A People's History of the United States right now --- he explores early feminism and civil liberties in a voice more conscious of the underdog than the Power Elite) Also, he's been around the history scene a good while so he's had ample time to assemble his version of the big picture. It really comes out in this article.

There is enormous hypocrisy surrounding the pious veneration of the Constitution and "the rule of law." The Constitution, like the Bible, is infinitely flexible and is used to serve the political needs of the moment. When the country was in economic crisis and turmoil in the Thirties and capitalism needed to be saved from the anger of the poor and hungry and unemployed, the Supreme Court was willing to stretch to infinity the constitutional right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It decided that the national government, desperate to regulate farm production, could tell a family farmer what to grow on his tiny piece of land.

Also, it's nice that someone says this out loud.

It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice.

Here's that big picture quality coming out. He's clearly impassioned about all of this, but I like the way he stays fairly unemotional here. This is a violent country, built on the tides of rightious anger. That's the way it's worked for 200 years.

He closes with a rallying cry, though he is also consoling us. We should take his advice.

Still, knowing the nature of the political and judicial system of this country, its inherent bias against the poor, against people of color, against dissidents, we cannot become dependent on the courts, or on our political leadership. Our culture-the media, the educational system-tries to crowd out of our political consciousness everything except who will be elected President and who will be on the Supreme Court, as if these are the most important decisions we make. They are not. They deflect us from the most important job citizens have, which is to bring democracy alive by organizing, protesting, engaging in acts of civil disobedience that shake up the system. That is why Cindy Sheehan's dramatic stand in Crawford, Texas, leading to 1,600 anti-war vigils around the country, involving 100,000 people, is more crucial to the future of American democracy than the mock hearings on Justice Roberts.

That is why the St. Patrick's Four need to be supported and emulated. That is why the GIs refusing to return to Iraq, the families of soldiers calling for withdrawal from the war, are so important.

That is why the huge peace march in Washington on September 24 bodes well.

Let us not be disconsolate over the increasing control of the court system by the right wing.

The courts have never been on the side of justice, only moving a few degrees one way or the other, unless pushed by the people. Those words engraved in the marble of the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Before the Law," have always been a sham.

No Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, will stop the war in Iraq, or redistribute the wealth of this country, or establish free medical care for every human being. Such fundamental change will depend, the experience of the past suggests, on the actions of an aroused citizenry, demanding that the promise of the Declaration of Independence-an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-be fulfilled.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Ann doesn't like the first amendment, apparently

Does this make even the smallest amount of sense to anyone? Ann Coulter was talking about repressing freedom of speech, and she said:

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

... so this is the same woman who said that Canada should be glad we don't bomb them, right? And consider what she said in regard to the war on terror:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."[link]

I don't know about you, but I think this is fairly good proof that Ann Coulter really needs the first amendment.

Can't punish more if it's gay

Court Rules Kan. Can't Single Out Gay Sex:

Kansas cannot punish illegal underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case watched by national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that a law that specified such harsher treatment and led to a 17-year prison sentence for an 18-year-old defendant "suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex."

"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest," said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

Not that I'm not glad with the ruling - I am. But this is another thing that seems obvious to me: of course you shouldn't punish more if it's gay!

But then I may be biased. (I say with a smile...)

It's like that legislation attempt to make prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical science to have children. Sure, that one eventually got beat down, but how in the world did it get as far as it did?

Bah. That's what I say: bah.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Target and birth control

AMERICAblog has an entry up expressing indignation over some Target pharmacists refusing to give out emergency contraception.

There's been a lot of flurry over issues like this lately, huh? I ... I can't even fathom it really. Consider the pharmacists refusing to sell the pill. I was on the pill for awhile - obviously not for pregnancy prevention issues. (Do I even have to say that, I ask with a grin). I sometimes wondered what would happen if I went to a pharmacy and they refused to my prescription. I somehow doubt that me yelling, "I'm a lesbian!" would have solved the problem.

But what would I have said? I can't imagine myself responding civilly. Let's be blunt here: I used this pill to make my life more bearable. And if some jackass with "moral issues" had tried to stop me from getting the pill designed to, shall we say, eliminate some "unpleasantness," there would have been some words exchanged. No civil discourse here, I can tell you.

Anyway, interesting post on AMERICAblog. Too bad Target's joined the fray.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Adventures in Heteronormativity

As I've mentioned earlier in this blog, I have a lovely fiancee. Beth and I are planning to get married in about a year's time, so the time of Planning is upon us. Seeing as how, marriage-wise, we're about as femme as the femmiest femme that ever femmed, Planning definitely requires not only a great deal of time and effort, but also that capitalized 'P' -- we're going full-out Martha on this one.

The other day we -- this being Beth, myself, and Wherdragon from The Dyke Squad comment boards -- were traipsing about the mall and wandered into jewelry stores to look at diamond engagement rings. The first one we entered was a family-style business -- a few stores here and there, but largely local -- and we were attended to by two upstanding young men who were very intent on selling us things. After watching us for some small time, they said:

"So, is there any particular reason you're looking at diamond engagement rings?"

"Oh," says Beth and myself, "we're getting married."

"Ah," say the gentlemen. "Both of you?"

"Indeed," say we. "To each other."

And then, upon asking us when we were doing so (in a year's time to the day), began to tell us about their excellent year-long installment plan. All very delicate and well-behaved, with very little gap in their sales pitch.

Following this meeting -- and wishing to compare prices and so forth -- we head on over to a different, national chain store. This particular store is populated by women. The experience there was somewhat... different. The sales clerk who attended us did not handle us as deftly as the gentlemen did, and made her fatal error when, as we were attempting to leave, said:

"If you want, I can write down the number of that ring style..."

"No, no," say we.

" that he'll know which one to get when he comes to buy your ring," she finishes.

For those who haven't taken a parcel of sex+gender courses, "heteronormativity" refers to the idea that people sort of assume that heterosexuality is the norm. In this case, if a girl is going to get married, it's going to be to a guy.

I realize that we live in a heteronormative world -- that, in fact, heterosexuals do outnumber the homosexuals, and therefore the majority of women going to jewelry stores to look at diamond engagement rings are going to be heterosexuals (although why in the world you'd choose your engagement ring without your future hubby by your side, I certainly don't understand). And yet, one store managed to find a way to ascertain the truth of the situation, and one store went with the heteronormal theory.

The first store certainly did the better job, salesmanship-wise, but was the second store really wrong for assuming we were heterosexual? At the end of the day, I'm not really sure there's a bad guy here. Just a... less careful one.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

From Fop to Fag

I'm taking a course on English Masculinity in the 17th -18th centuries. We're reading some early texts that rail against mollies (gay men). For today, I was reading some selected pieces in Secret Sexualities: A Sourcebook of 17th and 18th Century Writing, edited by Ian McCormick, and I was struck by how little has changed in the rhetoric of homophobes.

What have we learned about homosexuality in the last few centuries? Well, doctors don't consider it a mental disorder anymore. Gays and lesbians argue that we are functional members of society. We argue that we are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and everything in between. We can be fine parents. We don't have to hate ourselves. We're not abnormal. Queer is proclaimed proudly, not with shame.

And those who are against homosexuality?

This is from “Reasons for the Growth of Sodomy, in England” (from 1749):

"Our fore-fathers were trained up to arts and arms; the scholar embellished the hero; and the fine gentleman of former days, was equally fit for the council as the camp; the boy (though perhaps a Baronet's son) was taken early from the nursery and sent to the grammar-school, with his breakfast in his hand, and his satchel at his back; subject to order and correction, he went regularly through his studies; and, if tardy, spurred up; the school hours over, and his exercise made, he had his moments of play allotted him for relaxation; then sought he the resort of other boys, either in the fields, or public squares of the city; where he hardened himself against the inclemency of the weather, and inured himself to athletic exercises; wholesome as well as pleasant: this has sent him home with his blood in fine circulation, and his stomach as sharp as the ploughman's; supper over, and jogged down with t'other frolic, he went to bed and slept sweetly..." (135)

and then

"Now let us take a sketch of the modern modish way of bringing up young gentlemen...

...his whole animal fabric is enervated for want of due exercise; and he is grown so chilly by over nursing, that he gets cold with the least breath of wind; for, till he went to the girl's school, he seldom or never was out of the nursery, unless to pay a visit, in a coach, with his mamma; for, at the mistress's school, he was brought up in all respects like a girl (needlework excepted), for his mamma had charged him not to play with rude boys, for fear of spoiling his clothes; so that hitherto our young gentleman has amused himself with dolls, assisted at mock christenings, visits, and other girlish employments, inviting and being invited to drink tea with this or that school-fellow; insomuch, that his whole life hitherto has been on series of ignorance, indolence, and intemperance" (136-137)

You know what this sounds like to me? Remember our friend Dr. James Dobson? In his newsletter from June 2002, he included an excerpt from a manuscript A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. Recognize this?

It is important to understand, however, that most of my homosexual clients were not explicitly feminine when they were children. More often, they displayed a "nonmasculinity" that set them painfully apart from other boys: unathletic, somewhat passive, unaggressive and uninterested in rough-and-tumble play. A number of them had traits that could be considered gifts: bright, precocious, social and relational and artistically talented. These characteristics had one common tendency: they set them apart from their male peers and contributed to a distortion in the development of their normal gender identity.


Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

Based on my work with adult homosexuals, I try to avoid the necessity of a long and sometimes painful therapy by encouraging parents, particularly fathers, to affirm their sons' maleness. Parental education, in this area and all others, can prevent a lifetime of unhappiness and a sense of alienation. When boys begin to relate to their fathers, and begin to understand what is exciting, fun and energizing about their fathers, they will learn to accept their own masculinity. They will find a sense of freedom—of power—by being different from their mothers, outgrowing them as they move into a man's world. If parents encourage their sons in these ways, they will help them develop masculine identities and be well on their way to growing up straight. In 15 years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. I have never met one who said he had a loving, respectful relationship with his father. [link]

See, if you bring them up to be soft, then they'll be gay, silly!

And this reminds me. So, you've probably read "studies" that show when Mom's too smothering, her little boy will be gay, right? Here's an excerpt from further down the page on that newsletter:

Mom needs to back off a bit. What I mean is, don't smother him. Let him do more things for himself. Don't try to be both Mom and Dad for him. If he has questions, tell him to ask Dad. She should defer to her husband anything that will give him a chance to demonstrate that he is interested in his son—that he isn't rejecting him.


For a variety of reasons, some mothers also have a tendency to prolong their sons' infancy. A mother's intimacy with her son is primal, complete, exclusive; theirs is a powerful bond which can deepen into what psychiatrist Robert Stoller calls a "blissful symbiosis." But the mother may be inclined to hold onto her son in what becomes an unhealthy mutual dependency, especially if she does not have a satisfying, intimate relationship with the boy's father. She can put too much energy into the boy, using him to fulfill her own needs in a way that is not good for him. In reparative therapy [a psychologist's name for treatment of homosexuals], effeminate boys yearn for what is called "the three A's." They are: their father's affection, attention and approval.

And here's a bit from Sir Narcissus Foplin" (1708):

"He is the spindle-shanked progeny of a half-witted father, who drowsily begot him, betwixt sleeping and waking, to pleasure his lady, much rather than himself, and dying, left the fruits of his nuptial drudgery to the mother’s care, who, by effeminate fondness, has made him all women, except for the masculine peg, which is hung on by nature, for the distinction of the sexes"

And back to Dobson:

I've even seen fathers who did not necessarily have other distracting interests but simply remained emotionally removed from the entire family. I saw one father—an immature and inadequate man who emphatically told his wife, before the son was born, that he did not want a boy—completely reject and ignore their son and dote on their daughter. Apparently threatened by the idea of having another "man in the house," this father made his displeasure so clear that, by the age of two, his son was (not surprisingly) wearing dresses and playing with a doll collection.

Now, I've used only Dobson in this post because I kept thinking about his newsletter while I was doing my reading. But there are plenty of others who write similar things to him. And the themes in these two pieces of early English literature were all over the rest of the literature. I thought these homophobic arguments were from our generation, but no, all over these texts I found references to doting mothers, the nefarious influence of other countries, the world declining, men not being “real” men anymore, etc.

We – the gays and lesbians and all others - have changed our arguments over the years to show why we deserve more rights. These guys haven't changed their arguments in over three hundred years!

Isn't there something wrong here?

Monday, October 17, 2005

Oh, Ohio. Stop playing games!

And just when I lost all hope in Ohio...

Historical Society To Preserve Ohio's Gay Past:

The Ohio Historical Society has formed an initiative with a gay newspaper publisher to document the history of gays in the state.

Organizers will collect mementos and memorabilia and tap the memories of older individuals who experienced what it was like to be gay before society was more accepting of gays.

"This is going to be a way to help people understand we have a history, a culture, and better understand what we are and, most importantly, what we are not," said Malcolm Riggle, owner and publisher of Outlook Weekly.

Cynthia Ghering of the historical society says the initiative is an extension of the society's multicultural effort to gather items from various communities.

The society already has copies of gay publications from the 1960s to 1990s; meeting notes from Stonewall Union, a gay-rights advocacy group; and photos and T-shirts reflecting gay pride and AIDS awareness.

Now, Outlook Weekly staff members will collect items significant to the gay experience, such as love letters, election-campaign materials from openly gay candidates and tiaras won in drag shows.

Damn, Ohio, stop playing these games with my heart! First, Cleveland Heights gave more rights to domestic partners than any other city. Then, Ohio had its state wide ban against gay marriage. And then there was thatthe revival on Friday. And now this.

You are a fickle state, Ohio.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

And the hate just keeps on coming

Ion and I are back. You can expect posts to pick up again. (That was a great post, Cass, by the way. Thanks for posting it!)

I didn't make any posts while I was in Ohio, as though that's not terribly obvious. I just didn't have time, but I feel guilty about this because I missed ... well, anniversary is a terrible word to use. Nonetheless, a few days ago it was seven years since Matthew Shepard was murdered.

“No mother should have to see her child’s life cut short because of hate,” said Judy Shepard.

“My son Matthew was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime seven years ago this month. Since then, too many other innocent Americans have been attacked or killed because they were gay or transgender. But Congress still hasn’t acted. Every American child deserves the strongest protections from some of this country’s most heinous crimes.”

The House of Representatives passed legislation last month to expand federal hate crimes laws to include gays, lesbians and the transgendered (story) but a Senate version remains tied up in committee, and would not cover transsexuals.

Called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act it has passed the Senate in previous congressional sessions only to die in the House.

The bill would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs. [link]

Has much changed since then?

AMERICAblog just mentioned this event in Ohio - the state I was just relaxing in. It's crazy stuff. A group of "Christians" that have been using their numbers to influence politics held a revival Friday. They want to convert more people and continue to influence politics.

The group's formation comes after last November's election in which Christian conservatives helped pass a gay-marriage ban in Ohio and give President Bush the electoral votes he needed to claim victory. [link]

And I just heard that a gay man in London has been beaten to death.

Not a good day for news, I guess.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Touched by His Noodly Appendage

This man must know about Jesus.So Boing Boing linked to a scan on SplitLevel of a page of a 1954 coloring book called "Listen and Do." The picture is of an Indian man bowing before a statue of Buddha and the cheerful phrase beneath the picture reads:

Here is a man of India.
He is praying to his god.
His god cannot help him.
This man must know about Jesus.
Can you think of some ways to help him?

So leaving aside my immediate reaction (hearing a B-movie villian crying out Your puny god cannot help you now!), this is a 'whoa, the fifties were weird' sort of news story, but not one terribly suited to the hallowed halls of The Dyke Squad.

Well... until you read the comments. There's the very fun "Of course he should search for Jesus OMG THE ONE TRUE LORD I <3 THE J-MAN" comments right at the beginning, followed by a whole slew of commentors pointing out that wow, is Buddha totally not God, but rather just an enlightened dude. Finally, around a third of the way down the page, we have the commentor MintieMouse post the following:

Can't we all just learn to live and let live? Yes, old religious propaganda is *funny* even to some Christians(I'm not personally, but I used to be) and downright laughable if you're NOT Christian. But honestly- I think you should respect other religions. From my old studies, didn't Jesus teach that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Whether you worship the FSM, Jehovah, Vishnu, Allah or whatever, you should respect other's faith.

PS: Why are homosexuals against the Christian religion?? I don't get it.

Wise words from MintieMouse concerning the 'live and let live' philosophy of viewing one religion over another -- and then, randomly, the question of those pesky anti-Christian homosexuals which has nothing to do with the post.

Heck, nobody mentions it before her.

Now, it may be an honest question. It's good of her to admit difficulties in understanding. But what prompted the difficulty in the first place? The coloring book does not say "Here is a man of India. He is praying to his god. His gay, gay god." Nor is there an angry queen raging about the comments section slaying all in his path with his vitriolic Christian-bashing.

I don't pretend to know what was going through MintieMouse's head. Maybe it was just something that'd been bugging her for a while. So let's set the record straight (as it were):

1) Not all gays are against the Christian religion, just as
2) Not all Christian demoninations are against gays, just as
3) Not all gays and Christian denominations are for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Two of us are, at least vaguely, Christian on this board, and we're very, very gay. Are we against the Christian religion(s)? Heck no. Are we against what some of those religions do? Occasionally. Are we against particular Christians? Again, occasionally.

But is it a definite vote yay or nay? Dude. We're humans. We can't even manage to agree on how to pronounce the word "caramel." Of course not all gays have something against the Christian religion(s). Frankly, anyone heavy-handedly disparaging any whole group of people or beliefs is stupid.

...Which is not to say we, as individuals of our species, don't do it anyway. 'Cause occasionally, we're all kind of stupid.


Saturday, October 08, 2005

Fall Break

All righty, then. For those of us in college - Ion, Roommate, and me - there's a Fall Break heppening right now. Ion and I are going to see my parents in Ohio, so there will be limited posts from us during the next week.

I'll really try to keep making posts, however. Thanks for reading!

Michael J. Goschka shows his mettle

This is getting a little embarrassing, and I don't even like the guy: the President's approval rating is now at 37%. And we still have three more years. Sheesh.

So did you hear the one about the State Senator who called homosexual unions a perversity?

State Sen. Michael J. Goschka brushed off an apology demand from a gay rights group upset by his description of unions between committed gay couples as "utter perversity."

The Brant Township Republican voted Thursday with a majority of the Senate in favor of resolutions urging the Michigan Supreme Court to block public-sector employers, including state government, from providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees until the court makes a final ruling on the issue.

In an e-mail sent to a constituent earlier in the week, Goschka invoked God and Christian principles as "bedrock" reasons for gays not to be covered by health insurance through a partner's public-sector job.

"Homosexual and lesbian unions under any arrangement does not, and never will, constitute a family," the senator wrote, adding later: "Simply put, no homosexual or lesbian union is ever appropriate; rather, it is utter perversity."

Well, thank you for that intelligent comment, Senator Dumbass.

Here's the worst part though: when asked to apologize, the guy totally refused.

"I see it as endorsing hateful actions and behavior against a minority group or individuals," Crane told The Saginaw News for a story published Friday. "We call on Sen. Goschka to apologize for his hateful condemnation of our loved ones."

Goschka laughed at the demand.

"They should apologize for their lifestyle and tolerating something so terrible," he said. "The lifestyle, the act itself, it is utterly perverse. It's not natural."

Goschka said his comments weren't intended to be a personal attack.

"I've had gays work for me," he said. "Not a lot. But I don't ask."

Well done. Very well done. Good to know that a man like you is a representative of this government. I know that I feel like I'm in good hands.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Massive Delocalization - 10/7

I'm going to start making a post every Friday concerning things only vaguely political (heck, it's Friday).


This week's topic is V for Vendetta. Perhaps you've heard about it. Perhaps not. That's not important to me night now.

I just finished reading it and let me just say wow. Now, this could just be because I have crazy Alan Moore love (it's a relatively new love as I put off reading his work until recently because all through high school everyone was all like "Omg, liek read Watchmen its liek so cool!!!1!" But I love him. More than Garth Ennis even. That's a lot of love for me.). It could also be because the movie is coming out soon and it not only has Natalie Portman, but Natalie Portman with a sexy shaved head. Don't believe me? See for yourself. The movie trailer is a bit spoilery, I think, but that could be because I've now read the book.

You're probably wondering about the relevance of this to our whole crazy-political blogging thing.

You're also probably wondering if I'm just wanting to gush about this book. (Shut up, so I am...I do have a few weeks' worth of these posts planned out though, so hah.)

The gist of the book is that there has been basically a man-made apocalypse in the late '80's and (the story takes place in 1998) a totalitarian regime has taken over England. Everything is bad: hourly propaganda, concentration camps, ultra-right-wing bs. Luckily for freedom, a terrorist has come with plans to do away with the government. This is a really interesting story considering the state of the world these days. It centers around a terrorist, but the terrorist is in the right. I highly recommend it.

Also, Alan Moore is a brilliant, brilliant man. The book is long for a graphic novel (~200 pages), but really engaging. It's also a reexamination of freedom (making the distinction between freedom and happiness).

I don't want to get into too much more as it will spoil the read. go read it, bitch.

Oh, and here are some nice stats.

Quality 4/5
Creepiness 3/5
Humor 3/5
Left-Wing Extremism 5/5

EDIT: I forgot some linkies. Should be all fixed now.

White House says God did not tell Bush to fight wars

The White House is now refuting allegations that the President said God told him to fight the war on terrorism. (I'm just going to assume you heard the original allegations - they've been all over the news).

I really, really hope this is a case of the White House telling the truth. Because if not? Well, that's a tiny bit of terrifying, isn't it?

Heh... Judge Judy loves The Gays

Ha! And now for some lighter news:

Television Star 'Judge Judy' Scheindlin Backs Homosexual "Marriage":

Appearing on CNN's Larry King Live Tuesday, television personality Judith Scheindlin a.k.a. 'Judge Judy', came out in favour of homosexual 'marriage'. Scheindlin, an outspoken judge who takes cases to be aired on television was thought by many to be conservative.

Asked by Larry King about "gay marriage", Sheindlin replied, "Who is it hurting? You know, my grandmother used to say who is it hurting? So, I ask you, Larry, if you have two adults and they happen to both be of the same sex and they love each other and they want to set up a home with each other they have as much of a shot as heterogeneous couples do. Fifty-two percent of marriages end in divorce, you know."

Judge Judy supports gay marriage!

I never payed attention to the lady until she was in a few Get Fuzzy comics. And who doesn't love Get Fuzzy?

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Go, Speedracer, go!

In an astonishingly fast turn-around, a certain senator says, "Uh, yeah, about that no-babies-for-godless-lesbian-heathens legislation..."

A state senator has changed her mind about sponsoring a bill that would prohibit homosexuals and unmarried people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.

Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis says the issue has become more complex than she thought. So she is withdrawing it from consideration.

Yes indeed, more complex. Because no one could have forseen the vast outcry and condemnation for this idiotic bill from a zillion miles away. Brava, my dear, brava.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

O'Reilly sure hates Media Matter's smear campaign

Oh, no!

So remember how I mentioned that O'Reilly was going to go after blogs?

Well, he did. (Man, he hates Media Matters!)

Oh, no! The masses are communicating! Soon they'll be wanting rights and respect. Run for the hills!

Apparently bloggers = zombies. And assassins.

I'm sure you'll find this Factor particularly fair and balanced.

One agency doesn't think gay adoption = Evil

See, other states, this is how you do it.

Calif. Adoption Agency Agrees To End Discrimination Against Gays:

An Orange County-based adoption agency that was the subject of a three-year long legal battle for refusing to deal with gays and lesbians has signed a binding agreement with the state guaranteeing that it would no longer discriminate against applicants based on sexual orientation.

As a result of the agreement the American Civil Liberties Union announced Wednesday that it would no longer pursue the lawsuit.

"There are 500,000 children in foster care in the U.S., many in temporary emergency facilities awaiting foster families or adoption. By denying us placement solely because we are lesbians, Olive Crest was ignoring the needs of the children the state had placed in their care," said Shannon Rose, M.D., a pediatrician and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics who brought the lawsuit along with her partner Jane Brooks, a lawyer specializing in family law.

Well done!

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

No lesbian pregnancies for you, Indiana

It's early days yet, but "Legislation has been introduced in the Indiana legislature that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child."

So unlike some of my co-bloggers, I admit: I'm probably a tool of the patriarchy. I have a beautiful fiancee who I love very much, and while we're very much co-partners in life, we're developing a more traditional arrangement than is generally espoused these days. While I go to work and put food on the table, she's going to stay home and keep house, make dinner, and raise our kids. It's all stuff that needs to get done one way or the other anyway -- why not do it a way that works? Tools of the patriarchy are we, and damned pleased that we've worked it out to both our satisfactions.

On the other hand: I'm the one who's going to be pregnant. And I love the idea. Babies babies babies! Taking over the household! Giggling at light switches! Developing pincher grip! I'm a biological clock ready to ring. So my mothering instincts get pretty het up (so to speak) when someone -- for instance, Senator Patricia Miller -- champions a bill that:

would bar any doctor from assisting in a pregnancy through intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection without making a number of "determinations" about the "suitability of the candidate."

First of all, I'm not sure I'm too keen on the idea of eugenics to start with, and secondly, one of the determining factors that suggest "suitability" is, naturally, the presence of vaguely proven heterosexuality -- ya gotta be married to a manfolk if you're a woman looking to have babies. Why? Do we want to guarantee a stable two-parent home life? You can get that with registered partners or even, heaven forfend, gay marriage. Or do you want to keep the nasty Gay Gene from infecting our precious babies?

There's no real answer given to that in this particular article, but there is a hint as to why this legislation is coming up at all. Drumroll, please:

Miller says that assisted pregnancy is totally unregulated.

Yes. I see. As opposed to the completely regulated world of unassisted pregnancies.

And let's not forget, I can always just call up my buddy Friendly Male and get a needle-less syringe full of the good stuff. At the end of the day, this bill wouldn't stop anyone but the people who really need medical help to get pregnant and who may not fit the idea of "perfect parent" someone seems to have concocted. Who does this really benefit? And who is this really trying to hurt?


EDIT: *cough* I appear to have, uh, done a repeat post. Oh well. Two viewpoints for the price of one!

EDIT AGAIN: Wow, okay and Boing Boing too. They have a pile of more information there, including a list of the supposed "determinations" that would qualify you for the apparently-unachievable-without-medical-assistance state of pregnancy. Mark's right -- the damn thing does read like a eugenics promo.

I can't believe this filth

Will you look at this:

Indiana Considers Ban On Lesbian Pregnancies:

Legislation has been introduced in the Indiana legislature that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.

The bill has the support of Senator Patricia Miller, the chair of the Health Finance Commission where the legislation is currently being considered.

Miller says that assisted pregnancy is totally unregulated. The bill would bar any doctor from assisting in a pregnancy through intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection without making a number of "determinations" about the "suitability of the candidate.

Women seeking treatment would have to provide a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.

Among the determining factors is a requirement that the women be married to a person of the opposite sex. The assessment would contain a description of the family lifestyle and automatically exclude lesbians. Women would also have to provide proof that they have participated in faith-based or church activities.

I don't think this has half a chance at going through. However, the very thought of it is the scary part - the idea that this legislation got this far. This is disgusting - utterly disgusting.

I want to be a Pharmaceutical Researcher!


Actually, I don't.

I was trying to play off those books my parents had me read ("I want to be a Doctor!" "I want to be a Farmer" "I want to be a Shameless Tool!") but I realize that today my wit falls flat. (How sad.)

But! But! All of this has a point. I'm taking a course in Medicinal Organic Chemistry right now (Dubbed MedChem by my professor, whom I will call Bill) so I'm obviously considering a future in MedChem. What does that mean (I mean specifically, jobwise)?

It means that I have three choices.

1) I could work for Academia and compete for the ever-shrinking pool of tenure track positions (a rant for another time, I assure you).

2) I could work for Non-Profit Pharmaceutical (Such as OneWorld Health.

3) I could work for Big Pharma and be a Tool Of Evil (T.O.E.). (Bear with me on this.)

And, well, that's only if I want to go into MedChem.

By now you're probably thinking, "But what does Ion's uncertain future have to do with me?!"

Says you!

Aha! (says I) It has tons to do with you. My future livlihood depends on your suffering. Now, if I worked for OneWorld, it would have to be creative suffering as right now they only treat Visceral Leishmaniasis, Diarrhea, Malaria, and Chagas Disease. But if I work for Big Pharma...well...

You could be depressed...


You could have wicked Acid Reflux...

[Take that Purple Pill!]

Or even PMDD.

Say what now?

What is PMDD (I bet you're curious!)?!

Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) can interfere with a woman’s relationships and her ability to get through the day. It is the severity and consistency of a combination of emotional and physical symptoms that determine whether a woman has PMS or PMDD. With PMDD, the mood swings, irritability, anxiety, tension, hopelessness and sadness can all be extreme and overwhelming. Physically, a woman with PMDD may experience debilitating fatigue, insomnia, listlessness and problems like headache and/or increased sensitivity to pain that don’t respond to ordinary treatment. Symptoms of PMDD generally start 7 to 10 days before menstruation begins and disappear within a few days after the bleeding begins. Read the heck on...

Now hang on a minute! Acid Reflux is a real problem! Depression is a real problem! As a member of the menstruating crowd, I take some real offense to the notion that my monthly crankiness might be a disease and not just the damnhellass hormones. (And no it is not my time of the month!) In fact, it really seems to be The Patriarchy's newest method of female subjugation! But I begin to sound like a crazy.

Back to the point: I have pretty bad PMS (Ask Harper..). I PMS pretty hard every month. I get cranky and weepy and generally crazy. But you know what? My mom gets that way too. As do all women on occasion. It's a made up disease designed to sell pills to Americans (who in general love being emotionally defective...of at least be medicated for being so).

The Nation has a nice article about all of this as well.


Even if it is a real, life medical condition (like ADD --- trust me, I know someone with really severe's real...just not for every little problem child) I bet it has some root in all of the chemicals they sneak into out food/water/clothes/blankets/houses. I'm sorry, but potato chips should have less than tem ingredients...less than 5 even.

Bashing at Georgetown

I visited Georgetown when I was beginning my college trek.

Student Alleges Hate Assault:

Three unidentified males assaulted a Georgetown student walking near Lauinger Library in the early hours of Sept. 11, allegedly because the student identified himself as a homosexual.

Kevin Bowles (COL ’09), an openly gay student, said that he was harassed by three males, whom he believes to be Georgetown students, while walking with friend and George Washington University student Daniela Abatelli.

Abatelli said three males started yelling catcalls at her while she was walking close to the library with Bowles.

“I got belligerent and started defending myself,” she said. “I started walking towards them with attitude, but then Kevin said to leave me alone.”

Abatelli said one of the males asked Bowles, “What are you, a fag?” Bowles responded that he was a homosexual and told them to “keep walking,” she said.

According to Bowles and Abatelli, at least two of the three males started yelling anti-gay slurs at Bowles, and one approached and pushed Bowles.

I feel very fortunate to go to such a safe college.

O'Reilly's going to discuss blogs tonight

Oh, noes! O'Reilly's angry at the bloggers and he's not afraid to let it be known! I guess we'll all have to mend our evil, evil ways.

Gold ol' morally upstanding Franklin

Uh huh...

New Orleans Must Clean Up Its Gay Image Evangelist Says:

Evangelist Franklin Graham said Tuesday that Hurricane Katrina could lead to a spiritual rebirth of a sinful New Orleans.

Graham, the son and designated successor of the Rev. Billy Graham, said the city's Mardi Gras revelry and ties to voodoo were adverse to Christian beliefs.

"New Orleans has been known for years as a party town," Graham said in an interview with The Associated Press from his office in Boone, N.C. "It is a city that has strong ties to the gay and lesbian movement, and these types of things."

On Monday, Graham delivered a similar message in an appearance in Lynchburg: "There's been satanic worship. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."

Oookay, then. How do we explain the recent hurricane that went through Texas - our very "Christian" President's state - then?

It's not just the nutcases that saying stuff like this now. Religion's on the attack, and it's scary. It's very scary.

Way to be a good Christian, Franklin. I'm glad you're providing such a strong and upstanding moral example to all us other Christians. When in doubt, bash and blame. Well done. Jesus would be proud.

Outing article

We've discussed outing here before. I found a good article about such outings on This might be an interesting read for some of you folks.

"It's not the gay thing that's the problem - it's the hypocrisy," said Michael Rogers, creator of a Web log that has been at the fore of several recent outing campaigns. "I'm going to be calling out the politicians who vote against us and work against the interests of the very community they come from."

Christopher Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said he understands the anger that activists such as Rogers feel but believes they are wasting their energy.

"Outing is not an effective tool," Barron said. "I don't know a single vote on gay-rights issues that was changed because of outing. ... Folks should be focusing on the hard work that needs to be done and not get bogged down in personal attacks."

Micheal Rogers is, of course, edits the wonderful Page One Q.

I understand the arguments on both sides here. On one hand, there's the argument that sexuality is a terribly personal thing. On the other hand, we know that Santorum has an openly gay man working for him, and how do you reconcile something like this? Gay and working for one of the most homophobic men in office? I don't know.

So read the article. It might prove insightful.

O'Reilly expresses his great knowledge to Clark

Watch Bill O'Reilly try to lecture General Wesley Clark about war. It's fun. And by "fun," I mean "makes your blood pressure go up."

O'Reilly thinks that it's only a theory that not enforcing the Geneva Conventions puts American soldiers in danger.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly about O'Reilly pisses me off so much. There are plenty of other pundits out there who speak irresponsibly and sprout useless rhetoric. Yet O'Reilly's the one I post about here every week or so. I think it's that he's so respected - I think it's that people who like him claim he's "fair." If he were up there like Limbaugh and Hannity, yapping his mouth about conservative talking points, then I'd probably roll my eyes and ignore him. Call a Republican a Republican, for goodness sake.

But the fact that he calls himself as fair - over and over and over again - is what bothers me. And people buy it.

CT pictures

Page One Q has some photos of couples filling out their civil union applications in Connecticut here. I'm a big softie so I love stuff like this. Lesbians!

I still have links to the San Francisco marriages. See? And see? I love stuff like this.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

ABC and Focus on Family are Best Friends Forever!

There have been posts all over the Internet about ABC's ties to Focus On Family. ABC is featuring Focus on the Family in an episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Focus on Family is Dr. James Dobson's group. (Remember him?) The guy's one of the real haters.

Anyway, I haven't been posting about this because it was all over the Internet, but I thought I'd leave this link for people: ABC gives primetime exposure to James Dobson group! This guy's furious, and his post is a pretty good read. I had forgotten about ABC's asinine 20/20 episode that tried to rewrite the Matthew Shephard case and their part in refusing to air that awesome UCC commercial. So go read the post!

Scary stuff - the CARE Act expires

I assume you've heard about the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act? It provides - well, it provided care and aid to many living with AIDS or HIV. It was to "fill the gaps" left by other care systems, and the other day it was allowed to expire.

This seems obscene to me. I ... I suppose I understand why Bush doesn't care for gay rights. I don't agree with him, but I understand it. And I understand why others don't support gay rights or tolerance. I understand that the Bible has some lines that can be used in an anti-gay way.

I don't understand something like this expiration, though. It's like the anti-hate crime bills that keep getting vetoed. How can you disagree with gay rights to the point that you'd deny health to some of your citizens? That seems insane to me.

If these politicians claim to live by the Bible - the same Bible that has a savior saving lepers, healing the sick and helping those in need - why wouldn't they help those living wtih a pretty nasty disease in America? I just don't understand this at all.

Vatican's new anti-gay movement

So have I mentioned latey that the Vatican is going nuts?

Vatican Considering Barring Gay-Friendly Politicians From Sacrament:

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero who legalized same-sex marriage in their countries, and about a dozen American politicians who support gay marriage - including San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom who issued marriage licenses last year to same-sex couples - could be refused the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church under a proposal being considered by the Vatican.

Catholic bishops meeting in Vatican City at the first synod led by newly anointed Pope Benedict XVI are expected to consider refusing communion to politicians who pass laws that violate church doctrine.

The synod gets underway today.

I guess they're trying to regain the control they once had. I've never seen an institution so against change.

I feel bad for gay Catholics. I really do. I don't want to sound ... patronizing? I suppose patronizing is the right word. Anyway, it'd be tough to live in a Church that is so incredibly hateful. I left the Lutheran Church for refusing to be more open - they didn't come out against gays per se. But they weren't open enough, so I left.

The Catholic Church is on a mission, it seems.