The Gay Thread

[JWBear]

Actually, the shoes are the least "gay" thing about the whole outfit.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Oh, please. I can think of three gayer outfits he's worn. And that's just in the last two months. He themes every Saturday class and wears an outrageous costume. Here's his movie day Black Swan get-up:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/powerswaterworks/Picture1-1.png

We haven't talked about it a whole lot on LoT, but he is mentoring Tom & I. He gave us both scholarships and we're his featured members for March.

We were there for Lady Gaga day (he wore the outfit you posted) on Saturday, and we've attended every class he's taught since we started Jan 11. (Except for the one we missed for Ingrid's birthday party last week.)

So far we've lost a combined total of 37 pounds. Richard is crazy-amazing.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Govt. Will Stop Defending DOMA (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/23/Government_Will_Stop_Defending_DOMA/)

[innerSpaceman]

Rad, Rad, Rad, Rad.

Of course, they're LYING about it on, d'uh, Fox News - and saying the government will no longer enforce DOMA, which is certainly not the case. They will no longer defend it in lawsuits, because a particular suit in the Second Circuit opened up an avenue to find gays deserving of some kind of strict scrutiny in lawsuits* The suits in other circuits so far have come with the "local" precedence of "rational basis" determination - a much lower bar for constitutionality.

Basically, Obama is now free to declare gays are deserving of strict scrutiny, because the 2nd Circuit has never ruled that out. So Obama says they are, and therefore Article 3 of DOMA (which is the one where states are allowed to ignore the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if they are grossed out by The Gay) is ... wait for it ... UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Finally a back-bone, Mr. Obama. Welcome to the human race.




Hahahah, Maggie Gallagher declares Obama's saying Gay is like Black. Well D'UH, Maggie, you stupid cow. That's exactly right. Get.Over.It you loser B!tCh.



Oh, they are also lying that Obama MUST defend laws on the books. Not so. The Justice Dept DOES NOT have to defend laws it deems, in its own judgment, to be unconstitutional - just as it can decide whether to enforce ANY LAW on the books based on any decision-making process it chooses for which crimes to prosecute and defend.


BUT - individual members of Congress CAN step in to defend DOMA and other laws IF the Justice Department declines to do so ... probably gonna happen.






* (There are several levels "strict scrutiny" consideration - Obama did not specify which he believes gays are entitled to in courts of law.)





.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

CA Senator Dianne Feinstein says she'll introduce a bill to repeal DOMA (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=541b175b-5056-8059-7650-6c06a1eb0293)As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that.

I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.

[Alex]

I misread that. Was having a weird brain vortex since I was sure DADT had already been repealed. Pleased with any and all efforts to repeal DOMA but I assume that won't get through the House.

Out of curiosity, did she introduce similar bills (even if just symbolically) back when her party actually had the responsibility for passing it?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I have no recollection either way.

[Alex]

Some interesting reading (to me at least):

A 1996 DOJ memo (http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DOJ1996.pdf) detailing past instances of the president refusing to defend the constitutionality of statute and/or refusing to even implement/enforce statutes it felt unconstitutional.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Not Work Safe!
I'm NOT gay (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/14bb48c657/im-not-gay-from-projektfubar)!
two guys trying to prove that they're NOT gay

[Morrigoon]

They're just not even TRYING to pretend Ken dolls are straight (http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-T7417-Ken-Fashionstas/dp/B004G0U6RC) any more, are they?

[Strangler Lewis]

I could swear I see a bosom there. Maybe "Ken" is the name for Barbie's new Laguna Beach-loving lesbian friend.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

They're just not even TRYING to pretend Ken dolls are straight (http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-T7417-Ken-Fashionstas/dp/B004G0U6RC) any more, are they?I figured it was part (http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Fashionistas-Glam-And-Sporty/dp/B0037XA2P0/ref=sr_1_1?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1298923484&sr=1-1) of (http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-R9883-Barbie-Fashionistas-Artsy/dp/B002T1HFU6/ref=sr_1_4?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1298923484&sr=1-4) a new (http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-R9882-Barbie-Fashionistas-Sassy/dp/B002VJJKSQ/ref=sr_1_5?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1298923484&sr=1-5) line (http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-T3327-Barbie-Fashionistas-Sweetie/dp/B003FD7XOK/ref=sr_1_6?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1298923484&sr=1-6) and I was right.

Am I officially a mom because they all look like whores to me? Seriously. They. Look. Like. Whores.

There are some other Ken options (http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Fashionistas-Ken-Sporty-Doll/dp/B003JOIBRS/ref=sr_1_14?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1298923484&sr=1-14) in the line that are less gay (http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Fashionista-Sporty-Ken-Doll/dp/B004D65OQM/ref=sr_1_15?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1298923484&sr=1-15). (But still pretty gay.)

[Gn2Dlnd]

I love that "Frequently Bought Together" are:

* Fashionistas Ken Sporty Doll

* Fashion Fairytale Ken Doll

and

* Barbie Glam Convertible

Cuz, how else are they going to get to the Pride parade?

[Gn2Dlnd]

I love that "Frequently Bought Together" are:

* Fashionistas Ken Sporty Doll

* Fashion Fairytale Ken Doll

and

* Barbie Glam Convertible

Cuz, how else are they going to get to the Pride parade?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Anti-gay preacher Grant Storms, known for his campaigns against New Orleans' gay Southern Decadence festival, has been arrested for masturbating in a public park in front of children. (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/man_booked_with_masturbating_a.html)

[JWBear]

Onward, Christian Hypocrites...

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Anti-gay preacher Grant Storms, known for his campaigns against New Orleans' gay Southern Decadence festival, has been arrested for masturbating in a public park in front of children. (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/man_booked_with_masturbating_a.html)

Well at lease he admitted it, apologized, and even called himself a hypocrite.
Originally Posted by TowelRoad http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.towleroad.com/2011/03/anti-gay-pastor-grant-storms-apologizes-after-pedo-masturbation-arrest-says-hes-a-hypocrite.html)
Anti-gay pastor Grant Storms, who was arrested yesterday for masturbating in a public park in front of children, held a press conference in which he was "tearful and apologetic", WDSU reports (http://www.wdsu.com/news/27039818/detail.html):The Rev. Grant Storms called himself a "hypocrite" because of his Friday arrest on accusations of masturbating in a public park. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's deputies charged him with obscenity after two women claimed they saw him touching himself while watching children on the playground at Lafreniere Park.

Storms said in a news conference Tuesday that he was not watching the children, but he did have his hand in his pants. He apologized to those he has hurt, and he said he was sorry for targeting Decadence, an annual gay festival in the French Quarter.According to WWL (http://www.wwltv.com/news/Anti-gay-preacher-Southern-Decadence-foe-arrested-for-obscenity-117145343.html), "Storms told members of the media he is no longer connected with the church that once staged the protests against Southern Decadence, now running a lawn care business."

Storms said he was seeking help for a problem stemming from pornography, and said he was looking at some online about an hour before he went to the park (http://www.wwltv.com/news/Anti-gay-preacher-Southern-Decadence-foe-arrested-for-obscenity-117145343.html) to look at the children.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I don't drink alcohol—ever—but after watching this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zuDtACzKGRs) I'm kind of in the mood for a beer.

or maybe I'm just in the mood for a hot, square-jawed adonis...

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I wonder how many Religious Nutbags will read this Onion article (http://www.theonion.com/articles/marauding-gay-hordes-drag-thousands-of-helpless-ci,19325/) and think it's true*....Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act
February 25, 2011 | ISSUE 47•08

WASHINGTON—Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals. "It was just awful—they smashed through our living room window, one of them said 'I've had my eye on you, Roger,' and then they dragged my husband off kicking and screaming," said Cleveland-area homemaker Rita Ellington, one of the latest victims whose defenseless marriage was overrun by the hordes of battle-ready gays that had been clambering at the gates of matrimony since the DOMA went into effect in 1996. "Oh dear God, why did they remove the protection provided by this vital piece of legislation? My children! What will I tell my children?" A video communique was sent to the media late yesterday from what appears to be the as-yet unidentified leader of the gay marauders, who, adorned in terrifying warpaint, announced "Richard Dickson of Ames, Iowa. We're coming for you next. Put on something nice."*It wouldn't be the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#The_Onion_taken_seriously).

[Alex]

Is it hypocritical to be oppose homosexuality and yet be a public masturbator?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I'm not entering that debate again. He said he was a hypocrite.

[Alex]

And I'm sure he would know. I'm not saying he isn't a hypocrite, I'm sure that with his homophobia he railed in general against all kinds of sexual "deviancy" and excessive public sexualization.

But no story I've seen mentions such and I'm curious to know just how loose the usage of the word hypocrite has become. Because even by the loose usage we last talked about (merely doing something you've said is bad makes you a hypocrite), the simple "anti-gay guy is a hypocrite because he masturbated in a park" doesn't meet that criteria (unless public masturbation is somehow being viewed as a homosexual act which seems differently offensive to me, and hugely more so if it is somehow being connected because he did so near children).

[lashbear]

I don't drink alcohol—ever—but after watching this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zuDtACzKGRs) I'm kind of in the mood for a beer.

or maybe I'm just in the mood for a hot, square-jawed adonis...

Is the adonis one of the Vat 19 guys ??

BTW Thanks a LOT !!! Now I've spent 3 hours wasting my time looking at all the cool Vat 19 products. :rolleyes: :D

[Ghoulish Delight]

And I'm sure he would know. I'm not saying he isn't a hypocrite, I'm sure that with his homophobia he railed in general against all kinds of sexual "deviancy" and excessive public sexualization.

But no story I've seen mentions such and I'm curious to know just how loose the usage of the word hypocrite has become. Well, the protests at the Southern Decadence festival were specifically about the public nature of the festival, so there is something to be said for that aspect of it. If he's playing the, "Why do gays have to flaunt their sexuality publicly" card while furiously flaunting himself...

[Not Afraid]

while furiously flaunting himself...

I like it. It's much better than "Hiking the Appalachian Trail".

[JWBear]

As if we needed yet another euphemism for masturbation.

[Morrigoon]

Because "preventing cancer" is Soooo 2010

[Chernabog]

I think the fapping minister is a hypocrite because he holds himself out to be a beacon of sexual morality ('cuz them homer-sexuals are sinning sodomites, don'tcha know?) and yet there he is making blacklight underpants in front of poor, innocent children. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

New Yorker Plays Gay Inequality Card to Get Out of Jury Duty (http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/how-to-protest-gay-inequality-and-get-out-of-jury-duty/)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think the fapping minister is a hypocrite because he holds himself out to be a beacon of sexual morality ('cuz them homer-sexuals are sinning sodomites, don'tcha know?) and yet there he is making blacklight underpants in front of poor, innocent children. Blacklight Underpants is my new experimental psych rock band.

[innerSpaceman]

New Yorker Plays Gay Inequality Card to Get Out of Jury Duty (http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/how-to-protest-gay-inequality-and-get-out-of-jury-duty/)

SM, I think that is the coolest thing ever. More of this from gay people everywhere, please.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

BTW, if you haven't clicked on his home page (http://www.jonathandlovitz.com/), do so because he's smokin' hot! :evil:

[Morrigoon]

Dude should change his name though... just adding in the middle initial isn't going to be enough to keep people from confusing him with John Lovitz the less-than-attractive comedian.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

New Yorker Plays Gay Inequality Card to Get Out of Jury Duty (http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/how-to-protest-gay-inequality-and-get-out-of-jury-duty/)his MSNBC interview on the subject (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41993607#41993607)

[Betty]

Anti-Gay State Senator’s Secret Gay Life Is Revealed In Bribery Indictment (http://gawker.com/#!5780985/anti+gay-state-senators-secret-gay-life-is-revealed-in-bribery-indictment)

Carl Kruger is a Democratic state senator from Brooklyn. His vote against gay marriage last year was crucial in stopping the measure in New York. Funny thing: He lives with his gay lover, who's the bagman in their bribery racket.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Wait... he's a Democrat? That's odd.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not that I needed another reason to say this, but Fvck you, Chrystal Cathedral (http://www.ocregister.com/news/choir-292266-cathedral-members.html?cb=1300259784)

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, it's alright. Hardly any guys in choirs are gay anyway. No prob.

[Kevy Baby]

"Curing" Gay People? There's an App for That. (http://news.change.org/stories/curing-gay-people-theres-an-app-for-that)

[Alex]

As stupid as the app appears to be, this does highlight the problem I have with Apples closed app distribution system.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Stonewall Uprising coming to PBS in April, part of the American Experience (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/schedule/) series. Here's the promo (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/stonewall/).

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Ed Kennedy of AfterElton wrote:Let me get this straight: Adam Lambert snogs a dude on the American Music Awards, and spends months banned from ABC shows (http://www.afterelton.com/blog/edkennedy/adam-ama-controversy?page=0) like Good Morning America and The View. Chris Brown breaks a window and storms out of Good Morning America when he’s asked about his felony assault (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614453/chris-brown-strikes-plea-deal.jhtml) of Rihanna, and he’s still welcome to perform (http://www.tvline.com/2011/03/chris-brown-dwts-gma-outburst/) on ABC’s Dancing With the Stars. So male-male kissing is worse than violence. Thanks for clearing that up ABC.

[Alex]

While obviously Lambert shouldn't have been banned from TV because of what he did, the comparison would be more useful if Chris Brown had done any of his bad stuff while actually on air.

From the point of view of a producer, what Lambert did is a lot more relevant than what Brown did.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Shirvell has been fired (http://www.freep.com/article/20101108/NEWS06/101108039/Andrew-Shirvell-fired-for-attacks-on-gay-U-M-student).And now he's being sued (http://www.freep.com/article/20110406/NEWS05/110406017/U-M-student-files-lawsuit-against-Andrew-Shirvell). I hope Armstrong gets every last penny (and then some) out of that psycho.The current University of Michigan student body president filed a lawsuit Friday saying a former assistant state attorney general stalked him and inflicted emotional distress last year by posting alleged defamatory statements on a blog as part of a “bizarre personal obsession” that included calling him a Nazi, Ku Klux Klan member and a “radical homosexual activist,” according to a lawsuit.

Chris Armstrong, the first openly gay student body president at U-M, filed the suit against Andrew Shirvell in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. He is asking for more than $25,000 in damages.

Shirvell was not immediately available for comment this morning.

[cirquelover]

I'm guessing we must be having something coming up on our ballots because they have launched a big ad campaign. The tv ads are very tastefully done and will hopefully appeal to a wider audience. The ad we llike best has a man/wife couple talking about how their daughters convinced them that everyone has a right to be married and happy just like they are are. I hope it works this time.

[lashbear]

Right here in Sydney ! (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.starobserver.com.au%2Fnew s%2Faustralia-news%2Fnew-south-wales-news%2F2011%2F04%2F06%2Fletters-shed-light-on-oscar-wilde-trial%2F48816&h=8fdc382gaTh1ujyPiBN9fFMtpHQ)

[JWBear]

I was at Trader Joe's this afternoon. There was a little boy (about 6) who was holding a bouquet of flowers and looking distressed. He was with his mother.

Mom: "We're here so you can pick out some flowers to give Grandma on her birthday."
Son: "I want the flowers!"
Mom: "The flowers are for grandma, honey."
Son: "Why can't I have the flowers? I like them."
Mom: "Ok sweetie, We'll give these to Grandma and you can pick out another bunch for you."
Son: "Flowers are pretty. I like flowers."


Bless you young mother. I hope you'll always be as supportive to your little gay boy in the making.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So heteros can't like flowers?

[Gemini Cricket]

I hope they turn the Crystal Cathedral into a giant Fry's.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

So heteros can't like flowers?No. Didn't you get the memo? Hetero boys cannot like flowers and hetero girls can't like sports. 'Mo boys talk with a lisp and 'Mo girls like to fix cars. Honestly GD, you really need to keep track of these things....

[JWBear]

So heteros can't like flowers?

Honestly, what straight 6 yo boy gets despondent because he can't have the pretty flowers.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow

[Alex]

IF (a fact not remotely evidenced by the anecdote) the boy is gay then yay for mom not caring.

Regardless of whether the boy is gay, boo for mom teaching him that nagging will get him what he wants (a fact only slightly more evidenced by the anecdote).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Honestly, what straight 6 yo boy gets despondent because he can't have the pretty flowers.Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Do I really have to explain how fvcked up your statement is? How reinforcing idiotic stereotypes harms our society? And, most importantly, how untrue it is?

I'm using a good deal of restraint here. You've just demonstrated one of the worst examples of prejudice that exist today. Just.....horrifying.

[Strangler Lewis]

I was not there, but I think the most reasonable diagnosis is that the boy may be straight, and he may be gay. He may like flowers, and he may not like flowers. What he definitely does not like is being left out of the present giving.

[JWBear]

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Do I really have to explain how fvcked up your statement is? How reinforcing idiotic stereotypes harms our society? And, most importantly, how untrue it is?

I'm using a good deal of restraint here. You've just demonstrated one of the worst examples of prejudice that exist today. Just.....horrifying.

I've told this story to several of my gay male friends. Every single one of them had the same reaction. "Gay!"

You know nothing of being a gay man or of growing up as one. I would never presume to attack you for observations you make about growing up as a straight woman or how little straight girls think. I will kindly ask you to keep your hateful comments to yourself.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I've told this story to several of my gay male friends. Every single one of them had the same reaction. "Gay!"

You know nothing of being a gay man or of growing up as one.And you know nothing about growing up as a straight male and having your sexuality questioned any time you made the fatal error of not acting properly machismo. You're showing empathy? GAY! You like something that isn't blue? GAY! You like flowers. GAY!

And then everyone wonders why straight male culture is so destructively chauvinist, machismo, and vilifies any display of caring or sensitivity. Either you fit into the perfect little box of being a straight dude who doesn't cry and doesn't have empathy, or you like dick.

[Alex]

The exact same argument happened a year or two ago, prompted by pretty much the exact same thing. I imagine we'll all say pretty much the exact same things.

My (hopefully, I didn't go look for it) echo of myself:

I fail to see how shouting "you're gay!" at anybody who deviates from oddly defined gender norms has somehow become a sign of enlightened empathy as opposed to the ignorant conformism it really is.

Now, the kid may be gay. I have no idea. Maybe you have more information you haven't shared here (like he was wearing a "Nathan Lane speaks for me!" or "Daddy says it is ok that I like ****" pin). But you haven't shared any compelling information with the rest of us (well, not compelling information about the kid).

But I do wonder, is there an age when it is possible for a male to like flowers without it also meaning he is gay? Is every male florist in the world gay? Were all those retired bromeliad and orchid enthusiasts I used to have to deal with in Hawaii gay and after 75 years they just hadn't realized it yet? My great-grandfather put his roses in competition at the county fair every year. Is this, despite any other corroborating evidence, proof he was actually gay?

Also, I'm curious, is sexual orientation a matter of popular election. Does getting seven queens around a table to all pronounce that So-and-So is gay make them gay?

What if a male has "gay" interests as well as "straight" interests? Is it like being black back in the day? One rotten apple spoils the bunch so to speak and one gay behavior overwhelms all other straight behaviors? A boy who like flowers, muscle cars, football, lingerie models, and eating pussy is gay? Or is there a more complex calculus done? Honestly, I'm curious about the details of the burgeoning field of gayometrics.

Or how about we go back a dozen posts and state it thusly:

Bless you young mother. I hope you'll always be as supportive to your little boy when he strays from gender norms, even if proclaiming it loudly in a store for all to hear, and not try to force him back in that box.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Bless you young mother. I hope you'll always be as supportive to your little boy when he strays from gender norms, even if proclaiming it loudly in a store for all to hear, and not try to force him back in that box.Duly quoted. All hail Alex!

[€uroMeinke]

It's a Gay thing, you wouldn't understand...

[JWBear]

I was extremely hurt when I read CP's comment this morning. I shouldn't have lashed back, but I did. I apologize.

I am still somewhat puzzled by everyone's reaction to what I said. It was humor, people. Lighten up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I am still somewhat puzzled by everyone's reaction to what I said. It was humor, people. Lighten up.
Maybe it has something to do with the somewhat unpleasant thought that you might in the future (or now?I'm not sure at what age you feel like a boy's actions start to reflect on such matters) you might be watching my pre-pubescent son's behaviors and judging what they mean about his sexual preferences.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It's pretty obvious that you weren't joking. Nice try though. Defensive when backed into a corner then brushing it off...we've seen this before from you. Wouldn't it be easier to admit a mistake and apologize?

Even joking, telling a child she is one thing or another is very limiting. We all do it from time to time and it's something I'm training myself to avoid. Even repeating things as innocent as "he's good at math but not as good at reading" pidgeonholes him as specificially being a math person, setting him up to let his reading skills lag while working feverishly to keep his math skills up to some inner expecation.

If a toddler kicks a ball and you tell him "you're an athlete", or say to a 10 year old "you're not good at sports" when he misses a soccer goal, you're not only influencing his personal view of himself, you're telling him something that is not really being shown, and demonstrating that just one instance of behavior is enough to whitewash his entire persona and reflect either well or badly on him. Talk about pressure.....

....never mind if we're actually talking about a person's sexuality.

A far better take - "You kicked that ball!" "We can work on your goal shooting." "Aren't those flowers pretty?"

[SzczerbiakManiac]

According to The Williams Institute (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/) and posted on The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/04/08/10_Facts_About_Americas_Gays/), here are 10 Facts About America's Gays:
9 million LGBT people live in the U.S., 3.8 % of the adult population.
LGBT people are racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse: 1 in 4 are people of color and same-sex couples have identified themselves on the Census in 99% of U.S. counties.
A substantial percentage of LGBT people are raising children: 1 in 5 same-sex couples and 6% of children in foster care are being raised by LGB people.
LGB people are serving in the Armed Forces: 71,000 are currently serving, and there are over 1 million LGB veterans in the U.S.
70,000 same-sex couples have gotten married in the U.S.; another 90,000 have entered into civil unions and domestic partnerships.
The annual divorce rate for same-sex couples and different-sex married couples is similar — about 2%.
LGBT people are not more affluent. Gay men earn 10% to 23% less, on average, than heterosexual men. Children of same-sex couples are twice as likely to live in poverty.
Rates of hate crimes and employment discrimination against LGBT people are similar to or higher than for other protected groups. Until the Williams Institute, no one analyzed this data on a per capita basis, taking into account the smaller size of the LGBT population.
"Don't ask, don't tell" has cost taxpayers over $500 million since it started being enforced in 1994.
If all 50 states and the federal government recognized marriage for same-sex couples, the federal budget would benefit by over $1 billion each year.
Half a Billion dollars wasted on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. fücking awesome....

[innerSpaceman]

I take issue with conclusion No. 1, or rather feel it needs a clarification. 3.8% of the American adult population identify as LGBT, but since 8.5% are having same-sex sex, I think that lower number is misleading.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Great list.

If all 50 states and the federal government recognized marriage for same-sex couples, the federal budget would benefit by over $1 billion each year.How does this work? I thought that marriage gave you a tax break. Are we talking about revenue from businesses that are in the wedding industry?

[Strangler Lewis]

The concept of the "marriage penalty," which is the source of endless high comedy about old people shacking up, is to the contrary.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I've never liked Kobe Bryant. I think he's an asshole and if not a rapist, definitely an adulterer. But now I have a new reason to dislike this punk. Last night he was caught on camera calling a ref a "fücking faggot" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t84p7mcK2Pk) (at the 35 second mark).

GLAAD issued a response (http://glaadblog.org/2011/04/13/lakers-star-kobe-bryant-shout-anti-gay-slur-at-ref/)

The NBA fined him $100,000 (http://glaadblog.org/2011/04/13/breaking-lakers-kobe-bryant-fined-100k-after-glaad-speaks-out/)

And then Kobe('s people?) issued this well-scripted apology:What I said last night should not be taken literally. My actions were out of frustration during the heat of the game, period. The words expressed do NOT reflect my feelings towards the gay and lesbian communities and were NOT meant to offend anyone.Not meant to be taken literally? Is he trying to quote Jon Kyl (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381484/april-12-2011/jon-kyl-tweets-not-intended-to-be-factual-statements)?

[innerSpaceman]

In response to Kobe's "remark," former NBA player John Amaechi had this to say:

The problem we have now is because of the way we don't address homophobia, the ultimate insult to a man is to tell them either they're like a woman or worse, that they're gay.

We have to take it as unacceptable as a white person screaming the N-word at a black person. … I can tell you that I've been called a f——- fairly routinely, and yet people seem to hold off on calling me the N-word. We've got to mirror that progress.

I find this interesting in light of a facebook conversation yesterday between me, Gemini Cricket, Morrigoon and Chernabog about gay insults vs. harmless phrases. Brad has (in the past, at least) deplored the use of "that's go gay" as a version of lame accusation that relies on negative views of gay stereotypes. I, on the other hand, deplore when gay men refer to other gay men as "girls," feeling it riffs too directly on the insult that gay men are equivalent to women (even though there's absolutely nothing wrong (far from it) with being a women. It's just that gay men aren't.


Anyway, it seems to me like an interesting tangent of discussion ... perhaps.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I see both sides. While I do think that removing that use of the F word is a good social goal to have, and the NBA making a public statement that it won't be tolerated is a good thing, I don't think it reflects as badly on Kobe as (to use the obvious parallel) a white person calling a black person the N word.

I think the "he comes from a different era" defense, as lame is it often sounds, applies. He's my age. When I grew up, that word was not impressed with level of stigma as maybe it should have been. And, even more importantly, it was, in my neck of the woods at least, most often not used in a way that really was intended to connote sexuality. And while I as a more enlightened adult recognize that even such second/third hand denigration shouldn't be acceptable ("F word" means "gay" and gays are bad, therefore by calling you the F word I'm calling you bad), I see a gulf between, "You, black man, are an N word" and, "You, person whose sexuality is likely hetero but is actually unknown to me are an asshole so I'm calling you a F word because that's a near-synonym to asshole in my head".

Again, I want to stress, the NBA and people in general are not wrong to cringe at its use and to strongly discourage it and to continue to work to attach N word level stigma to it. But I don't think that Kobe's use of it is indicative of any particularly strong homophobic tendancies. Lord knows I was guilty of its use for most of my life, and it's still part of my reflexive language (I cringe at myself any time I think it, or think "gay" when I see something effeminate).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Anyway, it seems to me like an interesting tangent of discussion ... perhaps.
Or perhaps not.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, the three of us really talked it out on facebook. I'm not sure that many people read the Gay Thread. Of course, lately, I think LoT would do best to just reduce itself to the Vent Thread, the Happy Thread, and the So Thread - and be done with it. :p

[SzczerbiakManiac]

p'shaw!

[lashbear]

Happy 10th Anniversary to Gay Marriage in the Netherlands. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dittrich-gay-marriage-20110417,0,5942017.story?track=rss)

...and the Horsemen of the apocolypse STILL haven't smote the country off the map. :rolleyes:

[innerSpaceman]

The methodology for the recent estimate that only 3.5% of Americans are LGBT was all wrong (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/04/journalist_investgates_lgbt_population_is_9_millio .php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BilericoProject+%28The+Bileri co+Project%29).


D'uh.

[3894]

"It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it." - Liz Feldman

[Morrigoon]

:snap:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I've brought this discussion here because it seems more appropriate here than in the Bin Laden thread.
just for the record, I read "breeders" the same way you read "faggots"I think that's a status you assigned to it unfairly. There is no historical basis for that equivalency. Homosexuals have not gone out at night in packs for decades (centuries?) with specific intention of finding a heterosexual to kill because they find their "lifestyle" disgusting and call them breeders while doing so.
Cars full of drunk homosexuals don't ride past a heterosexual couple holding hands on the street and throw bottles at them while shouting "breeder".
Homosexual juries don't convict heterosexuals of "crimes against nature" and quietly mutter "breeder" under their breath as they pass sentence.
Heterosexual bar patrons have never been arrested for opposite-sex dancing, protested in the form of a riot, and had those activities reported in the newspaper the next day as an "outbreak of breedery".
The word "breeder" implies no more inherent malice than does "woman".

"I met a woman at the store."
vs.
"Crap, I'm stuck behind a woman driver."

Context & intent are everything.

[Not Afraid]

I think that the term "breeders" is dismissive and rude.

[Strangler Lewis]

Was it at the Gay Parade in SF the one time I went? Some other downtown or Civic Center rally I stumbled upon? I don't remember. What I do remember is a young gay fellow in the proceedings yelling "Breeder sh*t!" at some passing couple.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think I've ever used the phrase. It's not a matter of context, as SM insists. I can't think of a way it can ever be used un-insultingly.

That said, it's a perfectly good insult. I'll have to remember to use it if I'm ever called a faggot by a straight person.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I think that the term "breeders" is dismissive and rude.Isn't that how you feel about all labels?

I do remember is a young gay fellow in the proceedings yelling "Breeder sh*t!" at some passing couple.Fine, you found an anomaly. Are you suggesting this happens with anywhere near the frequency that the inverse occurs? Even so, that doesn't disprove my point. It's all about context & intent. That guy's intent was to be a hostile a$shole.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm not a fan of the term breeder, it's generally thrown around as an insult and not in the same context as 'woman'. I also find it inaccurate. We (LoT) agree that you being gay is not a choice. But "breeding" (aka having a child) is a choice and anyone (gay or straight) can chose to have a child. It may be more difficult for someone who is gay (dealing with a surrogate or adoption) but it is possible.

[Strangler Lewis]

I certainly wouldn't suggest that straights get bashed by gays with anything like comparable frequency. However, as to the term "breeder," my anomalous experience was the first time I had ever heard it in action, so the suggestion that it's used more typically as a term of affectionate distinction is news to me.

[innerSpaceman]

OK, SM, give us an example of "breeder" used in a non-insulting context.


I wait with baited breath for how likely an example this turns out to be.

[Not Afraid]

Breeder is insulting because - and context doesn't really matter - it reduces a person to one singular aspect that they have no choice over. I was born with one half of the equipment needed to procreate. Procreation may be a choice - or, as in our case, it may not be. Reducing my identity to a term that a) doesn't apply b) is painful and c) is singular is insulting.

I've used the term once and wish I could have rewound time. I reduced a joyful moment/decision into a dismissive event.

[Not Afraid]

Isn't that how you feel about all labels?



Really? I didn't know that about myself. Thanks for the enlightenment.

[Betty]

Calling people names isn't nice. I think that covers it.

Calling oneself the same name affectionatley or jokingly helps to take the sting out it. (fat, gay, breeder, faghag, etc)

[Kevy Baby]

Fine, you found an anomaly. Are you suggesting this happens with anywhere near the frequency that the inverse occurs? Even so, that doesn't disprove my point. It's all about context & intent. That guy's intent was to be a hostile a$shole.How frequently a term is used in comparison has absolutely no impact on whether it is an offensive term or not. Just because Homosexuals have (of course, very wrongly) been persecuted by hetero's in the past (who, more often than not, probably were hiding their own true homosexual tendencies) does not mean that using a derogatory term has any less impact. Of course content and intent has a lot to do with it; and this applies to the use of the term "breeder" as equally as it does "faggot."

Calling people names isn't nice. I think that covers it.Oh fine: just cut to the chase with a simple, concise reply ;)

Calling oneself the same name affectionately or jokingly helps to take the sting out it. (fat, gay, breeder, faghag, etc)I call myself a breeder on occasion and only in company with whom would not be offended or would misconstrue as anything other than the self-deprecating humor with which it is intended.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

OK, SM, give us an example of "breeder" used in a non-insulting context.I use the term all the time with friends, regardless of orientation. I don't use it with the intent of insulting anyone. To me, it has the exact same meaning as heterosexual but is easier to say and doesn't sound so ridiculously clinical. I first heard the term 20+ years ago from a straight (is that an objectionable word?) friend. Both of us thought it was an apt term and have used it ever since. I have used the term, when relevant, to describe "heavy-in-the-loafers" friends and other than LoT posters, they've never been insulted.

Breeder is insulting because - and context doesn't really matter - it reduces a person to one singular aspect that they have no choice over. I was born with one half of the equipment needed to procreate. Procreation may be a choice - or, as in our case, it may not be. Reducing my identity to a term that a) doesn't apply b) is painful and c) is singular is insulting.And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't see the word and the world that way nor do I see labels that way. If I reference one aspect of a person's overall being or if someone references one aspect of mine, I don't see that as a reduction.

Having sex is a choice. Can a male who is attracted to females but has never consummated his feelings be called heterosexual? I think so. Does that prevent his orientation and/or sexual practices from changing? Of course not.

Calling people names isn't nice.

Calling oneself the same name affectionately or jokingly helps to take the sting out it. (fat, gay, breeder, faghag, etc)Agreed, but I don't perceive "breeder" as a name. Is calling a Korean person "Korean" a name? Not from my perspective. As I see it, calling Mr. Kim "Korean" is merely a reference that may or may not be relevant to the conversation. Mr. Kim was born in Korea to parents who were also from Korea. That doesn't mean he's not a full person who has other interests, quirks, and aspects. It just so happens that at that time, that's one thing about him which was referenced. No reductions implied. If calling him Korean is relevant, it's probably not an insult (context). If I call Mr. Kim an asshole, that's calling him a name and that is absolutely not nice.

From my perspective, you guys are trying to prohibit the use of any adjective when used to describe a person. According to NA's definition, the use of any singular adjective reduces a person to that one thing. To me, that's preposterous and impossibly limits the use of language.

Clearly I'm not going to sway anyone here. My complete lack of forensic skills isn't doing me any favors either, so may I please propose a compromise? I will do my damnedest to not use "breeder" around you if you will understand that if I slip up, I did not use it with malicious intent. Deal?

[Morrigoon]

Yes, but if you call Mr. Kim "Slant-eyed", you can't really feign innocence when he is offended.

[innerSpaceman]

Wow, SM, I'm pretty flabbergasted by that. But ok, if you see "breeder" as simply a description, and not an attempt at to reducing people to animals, then good luck with that.

Of course, I love animals, so maybe the insult is lost on me. But in the English language, people procreate and animals breed. If you missed the obvious etymology of the term "breeder," consider yourself now educated. I'm surprised at your friends. But then again, I don't take much umbrage at being called a faggot.

[lashbear]

Of my gay friends, I have never heard the use of the word "Breeder" without it being in a derogatory sense. That is why I avoid using it myself.

[Kevy Baby]

Sorry SM: just because you don't believe "breeder" to be derogatory doesn't make it so (or not so to be correct). It is a derogatory term.

[Not Afraid]

It is a derogatory term that come with a load of unsaid meaning behind it.

Even with animals, I use the term "breeding bitch" to describe what Kimchi was in S. Korea before she became a pet and a princess, as in "she was USED as a breeding bitch".

[Betty]

SM - I believe you when you say you don't mean it insultingly.

But if someone is offended by it - what can you say? Just because you didn't mean to hurt someone's feelings (or however you want to say it) doesn't mean they don't feel bad.

[Chernabog]

To me, using the term "breeder" goes along with a "them vs. us" attitude. It's a dismissive term to call hetero people in reaction to the (high quantity of) terms that are dismissively directed towards homos.

You know, like when someone you barely know is yammering on and on about their kids, you might think to yourself "grrrrr... friggin breeders, I swear!"

Is the term entirely accurate now that so many gays are having kids? Obviously not... but it's really just reactionary byproduct of how the gays have historically been treated -- from the outside looking in. On the grand scale of things, it isn't usually meant to be a horrible slur.... just sort of dismissive.

That being said, I think that "breeder" is about as offensive as calling someone a "fag hag." It *could* be offensive depending on the context, but it isn't like we need to call it "the b-word" or something totally childish like that.

[Betty]

How many gays must God create before we accept that he wants them around? (http://youtu.be/hXpOA3jPC04) :snap: :snap: :snap:

[innerSpaceman]

Hahahah, I used "breeder" in a sentence in my el jay today. TeeHee.

[Kevy Baby]

Hahahah, I used "breeder" in a sentence in my el jay today. TeeHee.Bigot



















:)

[Moonliner]

I was wondering why my initial comment was passed by without notice and then I run across it here.

That was an excellent discussion. Thanks to everyone that contributed.

[innerSpaceman]

Now on the next topic, then (as suggested by a rather stimulating discussion on Towleroad):

Is there unacceptable discrimination, judgmentalism, intolerance of more feminine gay men by more masculine gay men, and vice-versa?



(Don't know whether that will have any traction here, but it sure has sparked a doozie of a debate over there.)

[Strangler Lewis]

Which one is it assumed would be considered the more "light-skinned," assuming that's a factor?

[innerSpaceman]

The masculine dudes are the light-skinned bunch ... in that, the argument goes, they can fit in seamlessly with straight society and hide out there. Flamers have less luck with that.

[lashbear]

The masculine dudes are the light-skinned bunch ... in that, the argument goes, they can fit in seamlessly with straight society and hide out there. Flamers have less luck with that.
That's because of the sequins, ducky. :p

[Cadaverous Pallor]

From a hetero perspective, I'd say that more masculine men and more feminine women don't have much in common with their less-so counterparts, and vice-versa. As a not-so-girly girl, I can honestly say that I am not drawn to girly girls as friends, which makes sense as our viewpoints are very different. Whether this translates to open hostility...well....yeah it sometimes does. ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Home Depot FTW (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/home-depot-tells-afa-take-hike)

[cirquelover]

Well I'm glad we just bought our bbq grill from Home Depot then :D

I think Home Depot does a lot of good things for the communities they are in. They hold a lot of neat classes. Plus they build the set for Game Day!

[alphabassettgrrl]

Ok, that makes me feel better about shopping at HD. Normally I prefer to shop at smaller stores, but if they support diversity then I feel better. And they told AFA to take a hike. Love it. Thank you.

[innerSpaceman]

Great Anti-Gay-Bullying song (http://www.vevo.com/watch/rise-against/make-it-stop-septembers-children/USUV71100796) by Rise Against. Very Powerful.

[Morrigoon]

36-26!

New York (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/06/cpsny-chair-mike-long-gay-marriage-will-pass-updated)

Ummm... or 33-29? Don't know what the difference between the two votes were. But big cheers both times.

The point is... IT PASSED

[Gn2Dlnd]

If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere... :D

[lashbear]

Congratulations to New York !!!!!! It was just on the evening news here. :snap:

[Kevy Baby]

I like this shirt

[Morrigoon]

I'm sure we've all heard the news already, but just in case anyone's been under a rock for the last 15 minutes... Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html)

[Ghoulish Delight]

A CNN analysis points out that the opinion was written in a limited way, specifically relying on California's equal protection laws, such that it's unlikely that the US Supreme Court would hear an appeal. Good news/bad news on that front. It means that, once again, the issue of federal tax status and recognition between states is punted down the road. But on the plus side, it does mean it's likely to stick and not be stomped on by the conservative court.

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps my favorite bit from today's ruling - this swipe at the California initiative process:

It matters not whether federal courts think it wise or desirable for California to afford proponents this authority to speak for the State, just as it makes no difference whether federal courts think it a good idea that California allows its constitution to be amended by majority vote through a ballot measure in the first place.


And yeah, it's a very narrow ruling. But that's what courts often do - rule on the narrowest avenue available - and that's usually the way it works out best. Not so sure in this case.

There's less chance the Supreme Court will want to take the case, but if they do - they are not bound by the narrow findings of the Ninth Circuit, and are perfectly free to consider the wider question found in the judgment of the U.S. District Court that gays ARE entitled to marriage.

(For those keeping score, today's ruling found only that it's unconstitutional to take any rights away, but not whether marriage rights in particular are constitutionally protected.)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Santorum Cupcake (http://instagr.am/p/G7z84jBLqT/)
work safe, but kinda gross in a cheeky way
you've been warned

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Dustin Lance Black's play "8" about the Prop 8 trial will be streamed live this Saturday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DcGbPqRqS8o) (March 3).

[SzczerbiakManiac]

"8" has been posted to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM) to view at your leisure.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

How many homophobes does it take to change a lightbulb?None. They fear change, even if it would make the world a better place.



I don't know who said it first.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So, if gay marriage is threatening to tear apart the very fabric of traditional marriage and society itself...what kind of fabric is it? You can vote!

http://mymarriageruinsyours.com/

[cirquelover]

Spider webs maybe?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

VGDM!

[Gn2Dlnd]

From the articleThe current Secretary of Education will be replaced by RuPaul, who will work with Perez Hilton, Chris Colfer, Rip Torn, and Ellen Degeneres and to develop a homosexual curriculum that will include courses such as, “Find the Perfect Shoe Online”, “Window Treatments As Cultural Change Agents”, “Wharton’s ‘Age of Innocence’ As Metaphor for Converting Children”, “Witty Retorts from 1850 to the Present” and “Auto Repair for Gals”.

Do you think he meant Rip Taylor, or was he playing a game of "one of these things just doesn't belong here?"

[lashbear]

If you couldn't make it to the Parade, or want to re-live the magic, check out Mardi Gras TV for the Parade highlights package (http://newmardigrasltd.createsend1.com/t/r/l/dyktkdy/yhbtuuhy/d/).

Scroll through the arrows for some more great videos including Fair Day 2012, a history of Mardi Gras and a very special behind the scenes look into the making of the K25 float, celebrating Kylie Minogue.

Mardi Gras TV is free and does not require an account to log in.

Er... All you Gays can watch it too, instead of the Hays....... :blush:

[Gn2Dlnd]

Haay!

[Kevy Baby]

Oats!

[JWBear]

Hall!

[Not Afraid]

Pass!

[Betty]

Word

[JWBear]

games

[Morrigoon]

Monopoly!

[lashbear]

That's not Gay !!

[Kevy Baby]

Depends on how you play it.

[Gn2Dlnd]

'Monopoly.

[lashbear]

VGn2DM.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

New Hampshire House rejects bill that would have repealed same-sex marriage (http://www.wmur.com/politics/30728870/detail.html)

WooHoo!

[Ghoulish Delight]

A couple weeks ago some infographic or another got me off on a tangent trying to correlate divorce rates to states that allowed gay marriage. Unfortunately due to several factors (not all states report divorce/marriage statistics, and it was difficult to categorize states where actual same sex marriage was illegal but also had laws guaranteeing equal civil rights to same sex couples) I never got the data in a clearly displayable format I was happy with.

But suffice it to say that the data that was available seemed to support my hypothesis going in - that the states with the LOWEST divorce rates were more likely to allow same sex marriage or have laws that granted more rights to same sex couples. The states with the HIGHEST divorce rates were the ones most likely to have same sex marriage banned in their state constitutions.

Sanctity of marriage indeed.

[Alex]

How about an article (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage) and a blog post (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html)?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah. That.

Although that 538 graphic kinda underlines my point about not being easy to represent graphically. There are as many green boxes below the line as above. So while I came to the same "statistically significant" conclusion from looking at the data, the graphic doesn't quite tell the story like I thought it might.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Nutbag harasser Andrew Shirvell's firing has been upheld (http://online.wsj.com/article/APaa286e972822436db2ef4af7204a3eed.html).

[alphabassettgrrl]

Good.

[Betty]

Guy comes out on facebook but friends are more concerned about his boring webpage. http://www.happyplace.com/15065/guy-comes-out-of-closet-on-facebook-to-friends-entirely-too-geeky-to-care

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I just took a call from a woman whose monitor was displaying in portrait mode instead of landscape. I was able to fix it and the following is what I entered in the work order's note field:remoted in, changed the screen's orientationSo watch out straights, we gays can even change your computer screen's orientation! ;)

[Morrigoon]

Aha! The "real" Gay Agenda - to reverse our aspect ratios! Diabolical... truly diabolical.

[lashbear]

I think they're selling clothes....? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=iTEeiceF1uU)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I'm pretty sure Kimberly-Clark (the company that makes Kleenex) is also benefiting from that ad.

[lashbear]

As is Vaseline, no doubt....

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Gay Marine says I do on base; a first (http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/04/26/gay-marine-says-i-do-on-base-a-first/)

[cirquelover]

Awww, how nice. I never thought I'd see the day either but it's great!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

images takes from www.every1against1.com (http://www.every1against1.com/), a site devoted to defeating North Carolina's anti marriage equality amendment
spoilered due to size
http://every1against1.com/images/e1a1_waterfountains_med.jpghttp://every1against1.com/images/e1a1_bus_med.jpghttp://every1against1.com/images/e1a1_restaurant_med.jpghttp://every1against1.com/images/e1a1_park_med.jpg

[3894]

My daughter helped to create the exhibit, "Queer and Here", about the LGBTQ community at her college. She's the kid in the light purple sweater and the banner with the rainbow-leafed tree is one of her contributions.
Click me for a slideshow of the exhibit and its creators. (http://queerwakeforest.wordpress.com/photos/exhibit-installation/#wpcom-carousel-152)

ETA: Also, she made this timeline: http://youtu.be/6Ai2vv_oCHc Maximize to be able to see it. It made me so proud, I cried. (The handful of names you don't know relate to the exhibit.)

[lashbear]

Basingstoke

[lashbear]

Who wants to come and see Puppetry Of The Penis in 3D with me?
Article on the show (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/stage/get-ready-to-duck-20120503-1xzw5.html)
The Guys discuss the show. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5qh_kBwJs)

[Kevy Baby]

Susan and I do!

[lashbear]

Rightie-o then, come on over.

[Kevy Baby]

Okay, give me a few minutes... we need to stop for gas

[Betty]

Well if you're going, maybe I can hitch a ride with you. I can chip in a little for gas.

[Kevy Baby]

$5 should cover your share

[Betty]

See you soon Lashie!

[lashbear]

I've got the guest room ready !

[SzczerbiakManiac]

It Could Happen To You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pR9gyloyOjM)

[Ghoulish Delight]

**** North Carolina.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

can't say I'm surprised
disappointed!
but not surprised (http://www.fckthesouth.com/)

[Kevy Baby]

not surprised (http://www.fckthesouth.com/)Site must have crashed

[SzczerbiakManiac]

you'll need to manually adjust the URL

[Kevy Baby]

you'll need to manually adjust the URLTurned out to not be worth the effort.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I made no claims of quality.

[Betty]

I made no claims of quality.

I demand a refund!

[Snowflake]

Thank you Mr. President!

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think this would have turned any tides, but I am nagged by a supposition of what might have gone on in the minds of more than a few black churchgoers in North Carolina had this whole thing been orchestrated last week instead of this.


Anyway, I am happy - and happen to agree with the Obama campaign's political calculation on this. Sure, it will bring out the crazies - but they were all coming out to get that damn Ni ... out of the white house anyway. Meanwhile, the base needs to be stoked and the youth vote needs to be re-energized. This will help.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think this would have turned any tides, but I am nagged by a supposition of what might have gone on in the minds of more than a few black churchgoers in North Carolina had this whole thing been orchestrated last week instead of this.What I suppose would have happened is that Amendment 1 would have still passed, and the swell of base/youth/progressive support Obama should receive from this change of heart would have been dampened by the discouraging defeat. By waiting until after the inevitable, he can ride the wave of reactionary emotion rather than be knocked over by it.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I think it would have been in his best interest to keep dodging the issue until November 7. It's political suicide. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, the majority of voting Americans are appalled by the idea of "letting faggots and dykes get married." Maybe that will be different in 25 years but there's an awful lot of people who need to die off before the scales will tip in our favor.

I'm worried the only guy (with any hope of being President) who actually supports LGBTs just pissed away his chance of being elected.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's political suicide. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, the majority of voting Americans are appalled by the idea of "letting faggots and dykes get married." Maybe that will be different in 25 years but there's an awful lot of people who need to die off before the scales will tip in our favor.
Says who (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-polls-americans-closely-divided-on-samesex-marriage-20120508,0,7646348.story)?

Yeah, that gets skewed once you narrow down to who actually shows up to vote...which is why he's doing this. Because while there are not a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage who are on the fence about Obama, there are a lot of people who would otherwise support Obama but have been reluctant to show up and cast a vote his way because of his refusal to take a firm stance in favor.

The old people that oppose Obama are going to vote, and vote against him, no matter what. The variable is how many of his younger would-be supporters will be motivated to actively support him. This kind of stance creates the charged atmosphere necessary to get people off their asses to the ballot.

[innerSpaceman]

It all depends on swing states, though - so national polls are pretty useless. And that's why the general worry among some that this was a bad move. Swing States = Redneck States, by and large (and very generally speaking).

But I'm sure they gauged the reaction to the vice-president and the cabinet secretary both floating trial balloons earlier in the week. I'm happy they decided to go ahead with fireworks. I think it's the smart move, and I'm going to trust the multi-zillion dollar smart political campaign that happens to agree with my own informal analysis.

Sure it will be nasty, and this will bring out the crazies in droves. But no more drove than were already driven. And it sure doesn't hurt to have an opponent with such pathetic foot-in-mouth disease. ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

A few important swing states for Obama: Colorado - 47%-43% in favor of legalize marriage. Virginia - 47%-43% in favor. Iowa - same sex marriage IS legal. New Hampshire - same sex marriage IS legal.

In many of the other swing states, the percentages are close to even. And if the question is expanded to "Should same sex couples at least have the same legal protection via civil unions" the numbers are OVERWHELMINGLY in favor (on the order of 65%-35%) in every swing state.

Compare that to the numbers from less than 10 years ago and it's a complete reversal almost across the board. The momentum is clear.

And I can't believe that there is a large number of undecided voters whose deciding factor is Obama's stance on gay marriage. Do you really think there's a good number of people that are thinking, "Well shoot, I WAS going to vote for him, but now..."

Similarly, are there a lot of people who were sitting around saying, "You know, I was going to sit this one out, but now that he's supporting gay marriage..." I really don't think so. The kinds of people who might get motivated for that reason were by and large already motivated for plenty of other stupid reasons.

But I've talked to PLENTY of people who would be supporters, but were feeling very unmotivated to support him this time because of his weak record on these kinds of issues. Without those people in his corner, he's doomed.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Our rights by state (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states)
It's an interactive color wheel depicting the wide array of rights on a state-by-state basis.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Do you really think there's a good number of people that are thinking, "Well shoot, I WAS going to vote for him, but now..."Yes, I do. It's easy to find these people. They like to congregate on Sundays. Strike up a conversation with them, you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Morrigoon]

Similarly, are there a lot of people who were sitting around saying, "You know, I was going to sit this one out, but now that he's supporting gay marriage..." I really don't think so.

I can name one person who said just that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Of course there are some. But my perception (and it seems Obama's camp agrees) is that it's a small number compared to the number of people who are too unhappy with how little he's supported the community so far to want to vote for him again.

Looking at the 60%+ vote for Amendment 1, it's clear that the anti-gay vote is ALREADY mobilized. Any further mobilization caused by this is going to be marginal. A small price to pay to re-mobilize the base that carried him in '08.

[Morrigoon]

I'm starting to think we need a law that constitutional amendments (state or national) can only be put on the major ballots. They're always sneaking sh*t like this in on primary ballots, which makes it way to easy for the non-incumbent party to ensure better turnout.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm starting to think we need a law that constitutional amendments (state or national) can only be put on the major ballots. They're always sneaking sh*t like this in on primary ballots, which makes it way to easy for the non-incumbent party to ensure better turnout.

I think that's a large part of why these things are on the ballot in the first place- to mobilize their base.

[lashbear]

Christwire reveals how YOU could be drinking The Gay unsuspectingly. (http://christwire.org/2012/02/starbucks-are-you-drinking-the-gay/)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Christwire reveals how YOU could be drinking The Gay unsuspectingly. (http://christwire.org/2012/02/starbucks-are-you-drinking-the-gay/)

So THAT'S what happened. :)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4t3v7R7hN1qf8kzuo1_1280.png

[Gn2Dlnd]

Chess joke = funny!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Secret Gay Agenda Revealed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTa9DfOnltA)

[blueerica]

I am getting extra excited for Pride SLC this weekend...

Mormons Building Bridges (http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/05/31/mormons-march-church-clothes-slc-gay-parade) is supposed to be at the front of the parade. This group's intentions are to be involved with Pride festivities around the country... Interesting...

A lot of LGBTQ out here come from Mormon families, so it's obviously a huge deal here. There has been a big It Gets Better movement out here, but until this group it always felt a little more like "we get the attraction you have, but we won't really accept you 100%".

Hmm, hmm, hmmmmm...

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

For those comic book followers....

It’s Official. Alan Scott, The Original Green Lantern, Is DC’s Newest Gay Hero
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/01/its-official-alan-scott-the-original-green-lantern-is-dcs-newest-gay-hero/

“He’s very much the character he was. He’s still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He’s also gay,” “Earth 2″ writer James Robinson told The Post.

The Emerald Guardian’s sexuality was rebooted along with the rest of his fictional universe as part of DC’s “New 52″ initiative aimed at rejuvenating their characters.

Robinson said he decided to make the change because making the character young again meant erasing Scott’s gay superhero son out of existence.

“The only downside of his being young was we lose his son, Obsidian, who’s gay. So I thought, ‘Why not make Alan Scott gay?’” Robinson recalled. “That was the seed that started it.”

He ran his idea by the bosses at DC, “who signed off on it without hesitation.”

[BarTopDancer]

I am getting extra excited for Pride SLC this weekend...

Mormons Building Bridges (http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/05/31/mormons-march-church-clothes-slc-gay-parade) is supposed to be at the front of the parade. This group's intentions are to be involved with Pride festivities around the country... Interesting...

A lot of LGBTQ out here come from Mormon families, so it's obviously a huge deal here. There has been a big It Gets Better movement out here, but until this group it always felt a little more like "we get the attraction you have, but we won't really accept you 100%".

Hmm, hmm, hmmmmm...

I knew I should have hitched a ride back with you. Then flown home ;)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

"Gay Sushi" from Chino Latino (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151859129930534&set=a.10150258913880534.488615.94913340533&type=1&theater) restaurant in Minneapolis
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s720x720/181493_10151859129930534_920932884_n.jpg

[alphabassettgrrl]

Nice!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

posted to Oreo's official twitter feed (https://twitter.com/Oreo/status/217407322190909440/photo/1)
https://p.twimg.com/AwRizsMCEAAh7nd.jpg

[lashbear]

OMG - See - you get a lot of stuffing at a pride celebration.....

[Kevy Baby]

Pentagon holds gay pride event (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAPmQr0SniB9ifzQ8CvbZTL1UBIg?docId=b5c7d124d ab14c5cb2fa1e83cf0732f3)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Colbert has a great riff (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/415946/june-27-2012/kraft-s-rainbow-stuffed-gay-pride-oreo) on the "Gay Oreos" and coins the word "homosnackxuals". ;)

[Strangler Lewis]

Apparently Tom Cruise is getting divorced. This is not good news for supporters of gay marriage.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Anderson Cooper: "The Fact Is, I'm Gay (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/anderson-cooper-the-fact-is-im-gay.html)."

[Kevy Baby]

Is anyone really surprised about this?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I'm a little surprised he came out. I'm not even remotely surprised he's gay.

[Alex]

No, but then the point wasn't that you should be.

[Alex]

Also, to steal someone else's joke, I don't think the fact that this is timed just as Tom Cruise* is back on the market is a coincidence.

They'd have the cutest babies.




*Note: I don't actually know or care if Tom Cruise is gay. So long as he wants to say he's straight and isn't actively hurting people who aren't I am fine with taking him at his word.

[Isaac]

I guess it was a slow news gay, er,um, day.

[Gn2Dlnd]

What SM & Alex said.

And they would have the cutest babies!!!

[flippyshark]

Google is gay! (http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/08/technology/google-legalize-love/) Elsewhere, I have seen people surmise that now fundie Christians will have to stop using the internet.

[JWBear]

...now fundie Christians will have to stop using the internet.

And this is a bad thing?

[flippyshark]

And this is a bad thing?

Gads, I hope my brief post doesn't connote that way!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Body shop repairs and upgrades bullied gay student's vandalized car--for free! (http://wtvr.com/2012/08/21/68279/)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Nice!

[Snowflake]

Body shop repairs and upgrades bullied gay student's vandalized car--for free! (http://wtvr.com/2012/08/21/68279/)

Excellent, I hope it brings them LOTS of new business! Good job!

[lashbear]

Um, SM & JWBear, have either of you seen THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-4gsKbBLrI) yet ???

*Yowza* !! (Rendered & no full nudity, but I still raised a sweat watching it)

[JWBear]

No, I hadn't. Thanks!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I had, and it was wonderful. :evil:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Heterosexual wedding couple's First Dance opened/dedicated to their LG friends who can't legally marry (http://fishingboatproceeds.tumblr.com/post/30254767825/my-friends-meg-liffick-and-joe-ball-got-married)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

http://i.imgur.com/UjRmV.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.


Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfvcking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fvcking sh!tballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh sh!t. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful c0ckmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfvck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. A$$hole.

[lashbear]

Nice.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Love it. :)

[cirquelover]

That was an excellent response!

[Gn2Dlnd]

Wow!

[innerSpaceman]

Outgoing gay Congressional representative Barney Frank is teh awesome.

A few days ago he insulted the Log Cabin Republicans with this barb:
For 20 years now I’ve heard how the Log Cabins are going to make Republicans better, but they’ve only gotten worse. I now understand why they call themselves Log Cabin: their role model is Uncle Tom.

Perhaps understandably, but certainly short-sightedly, the LCR objected (through their Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper). But Mr. Frank is not a man to be trifled with, and so they got this stunning and far more far-reaching and frankly U've been pwned response from the Congressman:

I am not surprised that members of the Log Cabin Republicans are offended by my comparing them to Uncle Tom. They are no more offended than I am by their campaigning in the name of LGBT rights to elect the candidate and party who diametrically oppose our rights against a President who has forcefully and effectively supported our rights.

That is the first reason for my admittedly very harsh criticism. This election is clearly one in which there is an extremely stark contrast between the two parties on LGBT rights. The Democratic President and platform fully embrace all of the legal issues we are seeking to resolve in favor of equality. The Republican candidate for President and the platform on which he runs vehemently oppose us in all cases. On the face of this, for a group of largely LGBT people to work for our strong opponent against our greatest ally is a betrayal of any supposed commitment to our legal equality.

But my use of “Uncle Tom” was based not simply on this awful fact that they have chosen to be actively on the wrong side of an election that will have an enormous impact on our right to equality, both in fact and in the public perception of the popularity of that cause. If the Log Cabin Republicans – or their even more outlandish cousins, the oddly-named GOProud –were honestly to acknowledge that they let their own economic interests, or their opposition to strong environmental policies, or their belief that we need to be spending far more on the military or some other reason ahead of any commitment to LGBT equality, and on that ground have decided to prefer the anti-LGBT candidate to the supportive one, I would disagree with the values expressed, but would have no complaint about their logic.

The damaging aspect of the Log Cabin argument, to repeat the most important point, is that they may mislead people who do not share their view that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than LGBT rights into thinking that they are somehow helping the latter by supporting Mitt Romney and his Rick Santorum platform.

It is a good thing for Republicans to try to influence other Republicans to be supportive of LGBT rights. The problem is when they pretend to be successful when they haven’t been, and urge people to join them in rewarding the Republicans when they have in fact continued their anti-LGBT stance. I have been hearing the Log Cabin Republicans proclaim for years that they were improving the view of that party towards our legal equality. In fact, over the past 20 years, things have gotten worse, not better. Most recently, on DOMA, when the House Republicans offered an amendment to reaffirm it, they voted 98% in favor of it, while Democrats voted more than 90% against the amendment. And it is not surprising that they have not been successful. Giving strong political support to people who are maintaining their anti-LGBT stance is hardly an effective strategy for getting them to change it.

The argument Mr. Cooper and the others in the Log Cabin Republicans have put forward in their defense is that they have succeeded in getting the Republicans to reduce the extent to which they denounce us, and, in Mr. Cooper’s phrase, the fact that Paul Ryan is “willing to engage” with gay Republicans. That is where Uncle Tom comes to mind. They are urging people to vote for the anti-LGBT candidate over the most supportive LGBT candidate and platform imaginable because the “antis” are calling us fewer names and are willing to talk to some of us. It is this willingness to acquiesce in a subordinate status as long as the masters are kinder in tone, although in substance, that emulates Uncle Tom.

I note Mr. Cooper points to a couple of Republicans as reasons for supporting that party and helping advance its anti-LGBT crusade. As to Representative Ryan, in addition to his “willingness to engage with them,” Mr. Cooper cites his vote for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. In fact, Paul Ryan has an overwhelmingly anti-LGBT voting record, including opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill, and support for a constitutional amendment not just to ban future same-sex marriages but to dissolve existing ones. It is true that on one occasion he voted for ENDA, but he did so only after voting minutes before for a Republican procedural maneuver – a motion to recommit the bill – which falsely invoked the specter that passage of ENDA would compel same-sex marriage and which, if it had passed, would have killed the bill. In other words, Paul Ryan has always voted against us, except for one occasion when he voted for us only after first trying to make the bill he theoretically supported inoperative.

Mr. Cooper also cites Susan Collins. She was very good on the question of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But the argument that supporting Susan Collins advances LGBT rights ignores the fact that Senator Collins has twice defeated Democrats who were far more supportive of our issues than she was. And an example of that is the current referendum in the state of Maine on marriage. We have a very good chance of winning in Maine, and winning a referendum is important both for the substantive rights of the people in Maine and for the political point that it demonstrates. Unlike the two Democratic Representatives from Maine, Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud, Susan Collins has been stubbornly silent. That is, in a state where marriage is on the ballot, and in a year in which she is not up for reelection, Senator Collins is withholding her support from us, unlike any Democrat who would have run against her. And remember, these are the best that the Log Cabin Republicans can cite.

Some have complained that in comparing the Log Cabin Republicans to Uncle Tom, I was ignoring the fact that they are nice. I accept the fact that many of them are nice – so was Uncle Tom – but in both cases, they’ve been nice to the wrong people.

:D

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Body shop repairs and upgrades bullied gay student's vandalized car--for free! (http://wtvr.com/2012/08/21/68279/)Ellen featured the student & the mechanic on her season opener, and gave them a nice surprise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNC8ONjfFls).

[Alex]

Nice letter, but when people are slinging around the phrase "Uncle Tom" I wish that every once in a while one of them would show some sign of actually being aware of what the character Uncle Tom was. He wasn't himself an Uncle Tom.

There is no "Uncle Tom" in the pejorative sense in "Uncle Tom's Cabin." That was a creation of later works.

The actual Uncle Tom character refused to escape slavery because he feared it would put other slaves in danger of punishment and then encouraged others to escape and was beaten to death because he refused to rat give any information on where they might be.

I know meanings don't always correspond to origins but in that letter Frank doesn't say he's calling them Uncle Toms in the metaphorical sense but rather comparing them to Uncle Tom the character and that annoys me more than normal.

But otherwise the points are valid, I just would prefer he did it without name calling.

[Kevy Baby]

...I just would prefer he did it without name calling.Well, then it wouldn't be politics.

[innerSpaceman]

Really, Alex, that was perhaps one of the weakest arguments you've ever made, imo.

Thanks for the education of how the actual Uncle Tom does not meet the standards of the popular phrase, but the derived common understanding of that term IS the common meaning of that term. It's all well and good to point out the fallacy, but since 99.9% of people understand "Uncle Tom" to mean precisely what Barney Frank espoused, I could hardly expect him - or anyone - to take a different tack.

[Alex]

Yes, as I said, it is just a peeve of mine. I wasn't really making an argument, per se, just pointing out something that is annoying to me. I even acknowledged that meaning does not necessarily follow origin.

Especially since he phrased it such as to say he was comparing the Log Cabin Republicans to Uncle Tom (particularly the final paragraph), not to the abstract concept that is now "an Uncle Tom." He references the character of Uncle Tom, not the concept of "Uncle Tomness" and in so doing misrepresents that character.

But still, just a pet peeve. As I said, I agree with his larger point that while being gay isn't necessarily everybody's topmost issue the Republicans are so bad on the issue that it is hard to imagine how they aren't disqualified from consideration for anybody who cares about the issue. Said without name calling.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Alex, is Maya Rupert your pseudonym (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maya-rupert/the-problem-with-uncle-tom_b_1881137.html)?

[Alex]

Perhaps. I'll just say I like the cut of her jib.

[lashbear]

Would you buy this property? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQngZb7FuU&feature=player_embedded)

Or this one? (Contains Bare Bottoms) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WuZsjTFke0&feature=player_embedded)

[Morrigoon]

I love how the guy says "Plenty of privacy out here" with someone else's balcony in the background.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Supreme Court to rule on California's Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-to-rule-on-prop-8-20121207,0,6412088.story)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Will be interesting.

Because of the narrow scope of the decision as written by the previous courts, the S.C. could uphold the ruling (i.e., Prop 8 remains overturned) without setting precedent for the larger national gay marriage picture. But they could choose to rule on the larger issue. So there are a lot of possible outcomes:

A. Prop 8 remains overturned, but the constitutionality of other states' bans (and possible future bans in California) remains unchallenged ("The process that got Prop 8 passed does not fly in California, therefore the prop is overturned. Matter of California legislative rules, not the gay marriage")

B. Prop 8 remains overturned and other bans are rule unconstitutional ("Forget the proposition process, equal rights is equal rights, prop 9 is unconstitutional on its face")

C. Prop 8 is un-overturned (?), and all state-level bans are considered constitutional. ("The process in California was kosher, and we find that the proposition passes constitutional muster, you have our blessing to go ahead and discriminate")

D. (can this happen? not sure). Prop 8 is un-overturned, but the ruling doesn't address whether the ban is constitutional leaving Prop 8 and other states' bans in effect, but challengeable. I suppose it's possible, right? If they basically say, "The issue here is whether the process of passing prop 8 was kosher in terms of Callifornia law. We rule that it was kosher, therefore that's not grounds to have overturned the prop. But whether the prop itself is Constitutional is not at question. That would have to be brought back to the court through another challenge."

Right?

[innerSpaceman]

I think we have to consider the strategy of the conference process, convoluted and extended in this case, where SCOTUS decides what cases to take. There were several DOMA cases to choose from, the Prop 8 case, and also an Arizona case about discrimination against state employees on the basis of sexual orientation.

Kagen would have potentially have had to recuse herself if the Gill DOMA case was chosen, but she doesn't have to on the Windsor case that was selected. That was under consideration. As was, most importantly to the point I'm about to make, whether there's any point to take a particular case of the 6 on the table. There needs to be at least 4 votes to take any case.


So what I submit is there's no strategic point in taking up the Prop 8 case if the outlook was there's not enough votes to overturn Prop 8. The justices know where their colleagues stand on this issue. It's not widely thought there are 4 votes to uphold Prop 8 - but even if there were, there's nothing to be gained from taking the case merely to uphold it.

In that unlikely event, equal marriage would still exist in 9 states. SCOTUS is almost certain to overturn DOMA, so those states would have full federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Even California would be able to overturn Prop 8 at a future election. There's just no positive outcome available for ultra-conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Even if it's determined by SCOTUS there is no constitutional right to equal marriage, that won't stop it at all. With DOMA overturned, any gay couple in America could travel to a state that allows gay marriage, and on return home to their backwards state that marriage would be recognized by the federal government.

So strategically, I think the Supreme Court just indicated confidence they will overturn Prop 8 at the least, and possibly even find a constitutional right to equal marriage under the 14th Amendment. (Remember, in taking the case, SCOTUS is in no way limited to the narrow findings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the constitutional issue is not reached for determination, because taking away existing rights - applicable only to California - is a no-go from the get-go. No, the Supreme Court can revisit the federal district court's ruling that Prop 8 violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, or consider any other damn thing they please.)

Ironically, the only down-side indicated by SCOTUS conference strategy in taking the case is they left open the standing issue of the Prop 8 proponents to have even appealed the district court judgment. The Supremes may want to put a kibosh on that kind of thing (technically the Prop 8 proponents are unlikely to have Article III standing). So even though the case was delayed an entire year while the California Supreme Court addressed the standing issue posed to them by the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court could still overturn that - and may indeed want to - leaving us with gay marriage legal in California and - again - with DOMA overturned, all such marriages recognized by the federal government.


In short, I just don't see any downside to the decision to take up the Prop 8 case. More delay certainly - but not much to lose, and so very much to perhaps be gained.

[Alex]

The USSC also will be addressing the backers of Prop 8 had standing to pursue the appeal that resulted in the 9th circuit opionion.

If they say no, I'm not clear on what happens. Is it just that they didn't have standing to appeal? In which the District Court ruling stands but has no weight as precedent?

Or would it mean they didn't have standing to defend Prop 8 at the original trial and the District Court ruling is tossed and has to be repeated (with, once again, the state having no interest in defending it and perhaps no other entity with standing)?

[innerSpaceman]

It doesn't go back to the trial level. The district court had legitimate authority to allow the Prop 8 proponents to intervene as plaintiffs. What's at issue is whether the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court got it right when granting those same Prop 8 proponents standing to press an appeal when the state refused to do so, and also whether they meet the other standards for Article III standing TO APPEAL that neither the 9th or the California Supremes even addressed.

Interestingly, there's a similar stated question on the SCOTUS order accepting the Windsor DOMA case. Does the House of Representatives have standing to defend DOMA when the justice department refuses to? In this instance, I believe the law is clear it does. But it seems the conference strategy was to give SCOTUS an opt-out option on both hot-button cases. I don't expect them to take either easy out. Again, because then Why Bother to Take the Cases?

[Alex]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know either way, but in the discussion over at ScotusBlog there seemed to be reasonable arguments that there scenarios that would kick all the way back to trial.

But I like your outcomes so I'll take those as a given until the Supreme Court decides to go all Citizens United on our asses again.

[blueerica]

I failed to mention that the LDS church has launched a new website that teaches compassion for those afflicted with teh gay, but is really (to me) a stepping stone for just another change in doctrine, despite the "God doesn't change" outlook they're speaking of now. They've radically changed their opinion before; why not now?

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

[innerSpaceman]

I call shenanigans on that. They want to urge teh fags to stay in the fold, as long as they don't fold in half and take it up the a$$. In other words, homo is ok as long as no homo really happens. Suppress your sexual urges forever and remain celibate, and you can remain a Mormon. Oh, yeah, ignore all that stuff about how Mormons can only have that after-life planetary existence if they marry and have kids. But you're all good for this lesser, earthly life of suppressing your sexuality and living loveless. Enjoy!

[Alex]

I'm assuming that Mormon, Sand, Gays is a all-inclusive Caribbean resort?

As for the tone, it is of course shenanigans but a pretty standard "hate the sin, not the sinner" religious position.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Or as I like to say, it's okay to be a Mormon, as long as you don't practice Mormonism.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Come Out As Gay With George Takei (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNjuB_lwgQE)

[lashbear]

Any Aussie Friendly links there? (I'm not allowed to watch it because I'm from the wrong hemisphere. I Effen hate that.

[Kevy Baby]

Try catching it from the Conan web site (http://teamcoco.com/) (It is from George's appearance on Conan's show)

[Snowflake]

I call shenanigans on that. They want to urge teh fags to stay in the fold, as long as they don't fold in half and take it up the a$$. In other words, homo is ok as long as no homo really happens. Suppress your sexual urges forever and remain celibate, and you can remain a Mormon. Oh, yeah, ignore all that stuff about how Mormons can only have that after-life planetary existence if they marry and have kids. But you're all good for this lesser, earthly life of suppressing your sexuality and living loveless. Enjoy!

That and continue to tithe lots of money. Color me cynical.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I'm sure I'll be excoriated for posting this (http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/i-dont-even-think-you-gay-well-you-should), but here goes...

"I don't even think of you as gay." Well, you should.
Why Coming Out, and the Fact that Public Figures Such as Jodie Foster Go Public With their Sexuality, Still Matters

by George Takei

When Jodie Foster spoke at the Golden Globe Awards about her long-time partner, and the kids they had together and the family they built, many people gave a collective shrug of "so what." In some ways, it is heartening to see society greet an actor's coming out as a non-event. It means we have made progress. At the same time, actors such as myself who spent years in the Celluloid Closet know what a big step it is, and continues to be.

For straight people, sexuality isn't something that needs to be proclaimed or distinguished, it simply is a part of their daily lives. For example, straight people generally never worry about losing their jobs or families because of who they love, or ever consider, let alone are asked, when they "chose" to be straight. To sexual minorities, however, it is often a daily fight, and an internal conflict that is years if not decades long.

Thousands of kids today still try to kill themselves, and often tragically succeed, out of despair that they will never find love and acceptance from their families or communities. Millions of otherwise well-adjusted adults still hide their sexuality for fear they will lose their livelihood or place in the community. Indeed, it is still legal in many states to fire someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation, nothing more.

So role models matter, yes. They are examples to those struggling to find identity and self-confidence. So when you think about people like me, I want you to remember that I am gay. It is an integral part of who I am, and is something that matters a great deal to me. It is part of what I struggled with for so long, and finally came to accept within myself before finding the courage to tell others.

Jodie Foster also chose to include in her speech a plea for privacy, and we should respect that. (If you'd like to see my remarks on this on Showbiz Tonight, click here.) Remember that this is someone who has spent all of her life in the public eye, and even had a stalker try to kill a president just to impress her. Until we have walked in her shoes, we cannot know her heart. So often in the LGBT community we want our heroes to be superhuman, and to do what millions still are unable to do, which is to live openly and proudly with their own identities, even with all cameras rolling. Most of us can relate to how difficult it was to come out even to our own friends and families; imagine then, if you will, how much courage it takes to face the judgment of the world. So before we rend apart our own with much wringing of hands and gnashing of our collective teeth, and ask why someone like Jodie Foster could not simply say the words, "I am a lesbian" on the night of her acceptance speech, let us instead each do our own part.

Here's how: If you are straight, consider that it isn't helpful to believe or announce that it "doesn't matter" whether someone else is gay. Of course it matters. That person has likely suffered internal conflict, social opprobrium and personal pain that you have never experienced. So long as there is prejudice and inequality, it will continue to matter. If you have gay family members, friends or colleagues, recognize that they have faced demons and come out stronger, and that they are very brave to be open, even today. It does matter.

And if you are gay, don't simply believe that others will carry the fight forward for you. We each must tend to our own gardens, so to speak, and do what each of us thinks is best for ourselves and our loved ones. Coming out is always a personal step, and one that is as different for each of us as our very life experiences are.

Thanks for listening, friends. And remember, it's OK to be Takei.

–George

[innerSpaceman]

Good on George. But how about she didn't come out and say "I am a Lesbian" because there's not a living soul on earth with a pulse who didn't already know that? She came out ages ago. When someone that public is gay, they don't have to make some announcement; it becomes - as it did in her case - common knowledge.

Instead, she did what I think is a much classier way to acknowledge her gayness publicly - she thanked her long-time partner of the same gender on national television. To me, THAT's how to come out - not to make some bold pronouncement - but rather to casually mention your boyfriend or girlfriend when appropriate, in the same manner any straight person would.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Tokyo Disneyland Hosts Lesbian Wedding (http://www.towleroad.com/2013/03/tokyo-disneyland-hosts-lesbian-wedding.html)
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef017d41819a26970c-pi

[innerSpaceman]

I just KNEW Minnie was a lesbian. But who's that chick Mickey just married?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I love the mirror-image dresses.