I didn't read the article closely, but didn't the MA court say that DOMA infringed on the states' rights to define marriage? That seems like it could be a problem later when one might, say, want to argue that OK has to accept out-of-state gay marriages under the full faith and credit clause.

They'd come up against Loving v Virginia.

Yep, both by the same judge. One uses 5th Amendment arguments,the other 10th Amendment arguments.

Haven't read the decisions and I'm obviously not an expert but while the arguments I've seen paraphrased sound good on this issue, they do seem like a potential double-edged sword.

I wonder if conservatives would be willing to trade gay marriage for a revitalized 10th Amendment.

ETA: For example, if DOMA is an issue because it intrudes on the historical role of states in defining marriage, how would that argument relate to the recent health care bill which intrudes on the historical role of states in regulating health insurance by creating national minimal standards?

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

Am reading one of the decisions now (a readable 39 pager). The judge used a rational basis review in reaching his conclusions (a relatively deferrent standard). I'm guessing most people here will agree with it but it is interesting to read the judge dismissing each argument offered for why the federal government has a valid purpose is withholding marriage recognition from those in states that allow gay marriage. (Mostly typing this out to force myself to read carefully and think about what it says.)

Rational Goal - Encourage responsible procreation
a) Expert consensus is that being raised by gay parents is not a harm.
b) DOMA doesn't actually do anything to encourage responsible procreation, just withholds benefits from some children.
c) Procreation has never been an explicit part of marriage qualifications (he quotes Scalia here).

Rational Goal - Defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage
a) DOMA can't encourage heterosexual marriage among those it deprives of benefits because they are already legally married.
b) Denying benefits to gay marriages does nothing to strengthen heterosexual marriages.
c) To the extent that it makes heterosexual more valuable or desirable it does so only by punishing people evercising a legal prerogative and it is fundamentally unconstitutional to legislatively punish a politically unpopular group.
d) Defense of traditional values of morality is not sufficient. Quotes Lawrence here with "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practics as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

Rational Goal - Preservation of scarce federal resources.
Rejected with citation to Pyler v. Doe (1971) that "a concern for the preservation of resources standing alone can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources." Since no reason is given for this method of saving money beyond serving as a way of expressing disapproval of same-sex marriage there's no argument in support.

Also rejected because DOMA's sweep is so broad in impacting more than 1400 federal programs that rely on this definition of marriage that many have nothing to do with "scarce" federal resources (whether that be money or effort) such as the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse.

Rational Goal - There's a federal interest in maintaining a status quo while the states work it out.
Everybody concedes it is entirely a state right to define the qualifications of marriage. There has never been a nationally uniform definition of marriage and federal laws an regulations have always simply deferred to state definitions without issue. Gay marriage did not create any new hurdle. The argument that gay marriage is different in scale if not type from other historical changes is rejected as being no more signficant or contentious than the fall of anti-miscegination laws were.

Further, the government misstates its case in stating it has an interest in maintaining the status quo for federal law as of 1996, before the first suggestion of same sex marriage came up. The judge notes that the 1996 status quo was complete deference to states in defining marital requirements and thus DOMA, rather than maintaining a status quo is itself the departure from the status quo. Further, DOMA does not actually create a federal standard for marriage, it just eliminates one source of state-by-state variation. Example given is a 13-year-old girl marrying a 14-year-old boy which is legally sanctioned only in New Hamphshire but still recognized as valid by federal law.

=====

At least in this ruling, since the Part 3 of DOMA is rejected on a rational argument basis it seems to me less like a double edged sword than it if had failed under strict scrutiny.

That's because it wasn't part of the original complaint. If challenged in court, there is no way it can stand.

I'm pretty sure that if DOMA is struck down on ANY basis, then the marriages would have to be recognized on full faith & credit (though it may take another lawsuit to hammer the nail into the coffin).

In other words, if DOMA is found unconstitutional, I don't think it's a piecemail sort of thing (like a contract). In most contracts, for instance, there is a clause which states something to the effect that if one of the aforementioned clauses is found unenforceable, illegal or invalid, then the rest of the clauses can still be enforced.

A statute like DOMA on the other hand is either constitutionally valid or it isn't. It isn't going to remain on the books simply because there hasn't been a lawsuit testing its constitutional validity in every situation or under every theory out there.

Apart from whatever full faith and credit limitations are in DOMA, there is full faith and credit case law about when states need not accord full faith and credit. Now, if the DOMA provision had been challenged and struck down, it's difficult to imagine what other interests individual states might advance, but the Supreme Court (if it gets this far) could still allow each state to have its say on the matter.

I would be glad to be wrong but I every analysis I've seen has been clear that these rulings have no impact on the Full Faith and Credit stuff in Part II of the law.

If bills were all or nothing then that would mean if any single part of an omnibus budget or one section of the healthcare reform bill would invalidate the entire thing.

I didn't mean that every bill was an "all or nothing" proposition, and I apologize because the contract example was a really bad analogy in retrospect. What I meant was, if a provision is found unconstitutional for ANY reason, then it is unconstitutional period. It doesn't matter if it's constitutional in certain situations, or if the unconstitutionality in a particular situation wasn't argued in the lawsuit overturning it, etc. I thought someone was arguing that the statute would remain on the books because a mere phrase in the statute had not been challenged, or it hadn't been challenged on a particular basis (namely, full faith and credit).

However, on that note I have to eat some crow here because I violated a principal rule of lawyering in my previous post, namely RTDS, which stands for "Read The Damn Statute!" I had it in my mind that DOMA was codified as one statute but it is not. The full faith and credit part (28 U.S.C. section 1738C) is a completely different code section than what was challenged (1 U.S.C. section 7). It doesn't matter than both were enacted into law under the same bill. What was challenged was not "DOMA" technically but "1 U.S.C. section 7" which would not have an effect on a completely separate statute. So the rulings will have limited effect, in the way DOMA was codified, how it is set up, etc. -- the "parts" are not interdependent as I assumed they were. The rulings themselves speak in terms of DOMA part 3. However, it always boils down to RTDS, which I should have done in the first place.

Hey, we can always move to Canada, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, or South Africa to get married. They are all lovely places, you know, and marriage is much less confusing there.

I hope that makes more sense. :p

Yep, all good.

The Perils of Lesbianity ok so this was funny and new to me, so I had to share :P

I know they have tremendous power over my attention frequently.

Purely for scientific purposes of course.

Argentina legalized gay marriage... their President was highly in support of it, and the bill passed their legislature, which she will sign into law.

Amazing how two heavily Catholic countries (Spain, 73% and Argentina, 70%) have legalized gay marriage but the US is still behind. And how the head of a mostly Catholic country (with large protests from the Church) can come out fiercely in support of gay marriage, but President Fierce Advocate cannot. He still thinks he can buy my vote by throwing the gays a cocktail party. Sorry Mr. President, I've been sober for a while now.

Coexisting with a strong sense of frustration is also an amazement at just how fast things are changing on this issue. I appreciated this chart posted to 538.com today

And now the companion piece: The Homosexual Menace

Homo-Cidal Maniacs
Why Gays are always villains in Hollywood

Heads up: Decision in the Perry Case (Validity of Prop 8) will be announced between 1 pm and 3pm tomorrow, August 4.

On our anniversary. Hopefully we'll have two reasons to celebrate tomorrow...

My guess (based on very little) is that the ruling will be to overturn Prop 8, but grant the injunction preventing same sex marriages from being performed until the appeals process is complete.

Happy Anniversary, Greg and Jen!
:)

Happy anniversary indeed!

Federal judge in California knocks down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. An appeal is expected.

Suck it, Carrie Prejean. :)

Cool. On to the next court...

Cool, but I do fear the end road if this gets reversed at the Supreme Court.

Happy Anniversary! Happy Anniversary! Happy Anniversary! Haaaapppppppppppppppyyyyy Aniversary! :cheers:

Happy No on H8 day, too! :cheers: :D

Ya know, I would even get some perverse pleasure in seeing the pretzel twists the Supreme Court would have to knot itself into to refute Walker's decision.

Walker absolutely eviscerates the case for Prop 8, puts together an exhaustive evidentiary record, scolds the defendants for failing to put on more than 2 witnesses, both of whom - after detailed analysis, Walker finds deserving of little weight (Miller) and zero weight (Blankenhorn). Furthermore, and more importantly, he finds the 14th Amendment Due Process claim worthy of strict scrutiny, which Prop 8 fails, and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection claim also worthy of strict scrutiny, but that Prop 8 doesn't require such - as it fails even a rational basis level of scrutiny. Bwahahaha.

He goes on to find that, d'uh, the only basis for passage of Prop 8 was animus towards gays and lesbians.


This is a shoe-in to be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit - where it will be an actual appeal (i.e., reversible only if error was committed at the trial level - not bloody likely). Of course, SCOTUS can and likely will make up law and justice from whole cloth to suit their political leanings ... but with such a reasoned and careful and all-out d'uh-ness of a decision by Walker, they could only reverse at great peril to the rule of law and their own stature as jurists.

Very visible :iSm: mojo!

Some legal scholars are saying the Proposition 8 proponents may not have legal standing to appeal today's decision. And the State of California will certainly not.

If that holds true, this would be the end of the line. I don't know if that's true, but it would be wonderful.

I would want the case to go to SCOTUS anyway - because marriage in California is pretty meaningless without federal recognition - but there are already a couple of high-wattages cases against DOMA working their way through the courts right now.

Just think of those positions! Because today, somebody called out "Right hand, blue!" ;)

Oh, and it also tickles me to no end to think of how much money the Moron* church wasted. Heh, heh.

(*Typo intentional.)

I should correct something I alluded to earlier. The findings regarding unconstitutionality will be reviewed de novo by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning 'from the beginning.' But those rulings will still be based on Judge Walker's exhaustive Findings of Fact, which can only be reversed if exceptional error is found in them.

Maddies view -"why can't it just be a Federal Law. If the Supreme Court declares it unconsitiutional then it should just be a Federal Law".

Yea, she needs more civics classes. Honestly this all just puzzles her as it never occured to her until Prop 8 that Gay's couldn't marry anyway.

All day long I was wondering if, in the future, we will look at people who oppose marriage rights in the same way we look at people today who think there should still be separate drinking fountains.

I sure hope so.

I can't wait to have to explain to my grandkids the answer to the inevitable question.... "Why?" And try to define the mindset of people I don't understand even though we live in the same time.

I'm kind of disappointed in learning how ignorant some of high school classmates are that have friended me on Facebook. I guess there's reason we haven't made contact in 30 years.

So, who's going to catch the bouquet and be next?

I'm cautiously optimistic.

I'm really glad that I was busy last night. Got to miss the expected ignoramus comments.

Haha.... I think Kerry posted this on her facebook page but:

Overturn of Prop 8 leads to Disneyland price increase. LOL!

A reviewing court does not have to upset any of the findings of fact to apply the legal standard of whether the law meets the low rational basis standard for constitutionality. Scalia's view is that states may enact moral judgments so long as they do not intrude on any constitutionally protected class, so his threshold for rationality is certain to be very low, if indeed, he doesn't find a way to skirt the standard of review entirely.

Yeah, Scalia is a real c0cksucker, and I don't mean that in the good way.

I wonder how much upper courts will be bound or influenced by Walker's finding that the claims were deserving of strict scrutiny, but didn't receive it - since they didn't even rise to the level of rational basis.

The Ninth Circuit is going to uphold this in a walk. (Well, ya know, a 2-year+ strolling walk). And like I said before, the pretzel twists needed for the Supremes to overturn it would be entertaining in their own right. (As would Washington going up in flames. Angry, queeny, flaming gay flames.)

The trend continues

Mexico High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Law

I can't believe the comments I see online from some people. One idiot spouted that "voters rights" have just been taken away, and how we're losing our freedoms in this country, yet gays should not be allowed to marry, because they can't procreate "by design". And then also said how "liberals" aren't intelligent like he is, and how before long, we'll all be in "bondage" and enslaved to a "socialist society".

Anyone else see the blatant contradiction in that statement?

I've mostly been ignoring it, but it was his response to a No-H8 friend of mine on Facebook, so I had to go in and defend her. This was my response:

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment but errors will become the point of rebuttal even if they don't change the general argument.

The premise of your second paragraph is false. There's no state in which anal or oral sex are illegal. There may be states where such statues remain on the books (but this is common across many areas later invalidated) but since Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 all such statutes regulating private consensual sexual acts have been unconstitutional.

I know of no state law ever existing that mandated only the missionary position for heterosexual partners. But I'd love to learn I'm wrong about that, though such laws would still have been negated by Lawrence.

I believe she's referring to anti sodomy laws since by some definitions "sodomy" is "anything other than missionary sex".

Yeah, but I've never been able to actually track down an instance where statute defined sodomy in that way. I'd love to be wrong but the determination on some legal boards I found when last looking into the issue (it's come up before) was that it is kind of a legal urban legend or possibly a broad theoretical reading of a statute that wasn't ever actually implemented that way.

I'd love to be wrong though as stupid laws are funny. Broader point remains, even if that was ever the case, it is definitely now no longer the case.

And it suddenly occurs to me that I've been searching various phrases including the word sodomy from work. Probably nobody cares.

It's ok. He only rebutted that I was "being rude", and that he doesn't feel that sexuality should be shoved in anyone's faces.

Of course, I responded that he needs to practice what he preaches then and never hold hands with his wife in public.

So, homophobia is obviously his REAL issue.

My wife and I do it doggy style: I sit up and beg while she rolls over and plays dead.

Ba-dum-ching!
:D

:eek:

Sinners!


;)

Or start holding hands with people he has no sexual interest in (which might mean he can still hold hands with his wife).

About holding hands... I tried it a couple of times in public with an ex or two. Didn't like it. It felt too needy. 'Oh, I can't walk down the street without holding someone's hand.' To me, holding hands isn't romantic.
:D

Borrowed from Gemini Cricket's Facebook:





Yes, Yogi, great things do indeed come in bears, and from the look on your face - I'd say Coming real Soon.

Gosh, I was just on my way over to post the same thing. This really can't be an accident, can it? Wow. Here's a link to the trailer in case you have neurons you need to destroy.

One wonders if GC borrowed it from here.

Equity California has an online petition asking Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley to not defend Prop 8 if they get elected.

You can sign it here

Meg Whitman donated money to Prop 8, I don't understand why she would not support it now.

^^^ LOL yeah... I just wanna punch Maggie Gallagher in the FUPA every time I hear her say "activist judge."

Walker expected to rule on the Stay of his Decision within the hour.

(This posted at 11am, Thursday, August 13)

NO? REALLY? SERIOUSLY? OMG!!!- Then burst out in tears.


That was my reaction moments ago when I learned that my new fearless hero, Judge Vaughn Walker, has refused to stay his decision in the Prop 8 case, and in-love gay couples - many of whom are lined up right now at City Hall in San Francisco and other locations, may be issued marriage licenses immediately!!!!!!



I can hardly believe it, and I'm crying again as I type this. Fvck, wha's going on?? - I can't control my emotions.



(oh yeah, when have I ever been able to?)



:cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap:

Wow... BJ and I are on a train right now traveling from Montreal to Toronto, watching the live feed. Crazy!!!! Since CA has to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, (per something that Schwartzenegger actually DID sign) maybe we should elope? LOL my parents, brother and sister in law are all here so.... ;) Nawwww...... BJ is reading over my shoulder and he is not amused :p

Not amused? He's lucky to have you ... and you him. You can legally get married in Canada, and it would be recognized when you return to California. Your family is with you. Do it!


Besides, you live in California. You can get divorced at the drop of a hat.



I like BJ a lot, but what's wrong with him??? ;)

I'm looking at the ruling however, and it seems as though Judge Walker is deferring to the 9th circuit court of appeals?? So there IS still a stay.... (despite the Motion being denied... Judge Walker seeing no reason to have a stay).

OK so basically, he's allowing until August 18th at 5:00pm PST for the 9th Circuit court of appeals to do anything, and if they havent issued a stay by then, then Prop 8 is lifted.

I'm pretty sure the 9th circuit will stay the thing, but who knows???

That's ok, I was pretty sure Judge Vaughn would keep the stay - knowing that the Ninth Circuit would uphold it anyway.

So who knows indeed?

I haven't read the decision yet but apparently Walker also said in today's thing that the Prop 8 people won't have standing to appeal. Of course, higher courts could disagree.

He cites numerous case law to support that position. Seeing that he's the Chief Justice of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he knows what he's talking about.

According to Walker, the defendant-intervenors would have to show that THEY, and not the State of California, and not the gay and lesbian citizens of California, would suffer serious harm in order to gain the standing to appeal, which they DO NOT have, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, simply by being the proponents of a ballot initiative proposition that was ruled unconstitutional.

The intervenors were granted opportunity at trial to demonstrate or even state any harm they would suffer if Prop 8 were enjoined, and they failed to do so.


In their motion for a stay, they allude to harm suffered by the State of California, and - amazingly (with chutzpah!) to gays and lesbians whose marriages might be "clouded" by uncertainty if they are married before appeals are decided.


But Governor Terminator and Attorney General Moonbeam represent the State of California; the intervenors do not. Both state officials have supported a lift of the stay (and apparently will not appeal the decision, though they may very well be the only ones with standing to do so.)

As for the intervenors' other, rather specious claim of harm, Judge Walker says it best in today's Order:

Oooh, snap!

He goes on ...

And that's just a touch of the total smack-down Vaughn plants on the H8ers.

Read the entire order here. It's a hoot. And it's justice on a plate!

Seriously: you shaved the really cute beard that everybody BUT BJ liked. What more does he want?!?

me gay, me like BJ whole lots.

Favorite stupid sign from the H8ers seen in photos today: "A Moral Wrong Can't Be A Civil Right".

Ummm, since when?

It cracks me up that it's seeming to be Conservatives' best bet to simply give up on California, and allow the case to die here - without going on to an appeals court.

Cases affirmed on appeal carry roughly a billion times the precedent weight of a lower court decision. If the Ninth Circuit affirms, even though the case is tied to California in myriad ways, the precedent could be used to challenge gay marriage bans across the nation.

Worse yet, the conservo-fundies are not even sure the Supremes could be counted on to reverse Judge Walker's rulings, now that they've had to chance to examine them and have discovered their impenetrable awesomeness.


In some conservative quarters, it's already looking like giving up California for the sake of being able to carry on bigotry in 44 other states would be a wise strategic retreat. Seeing as there's an easy way out ... in fact, perhaps an automatic way out (it's looking less and less like anyone with standing will make an appeal) - restoring equal marriage to California may be what Conservatives are hoping for.


That's delicious irony. I think I'll enjoy the taste for a few days


... but hope that the Ninth Circuit finds some way to take the case anyway.

And I believe they will. Now that we're on a roll, it would be a shame to stop here. It's a roll of the dice I'd be willing to take ... the stakes are too high not to try. Marriage in California for gays is marriage in name only - without the federal rights that accompany straight marriage.

So while I was giddy for a while today at the thought of gay marriages starting up again, I think it would be best if the Ninth Circuit ignored the law and allowed the H8ers to appeal.

Just realized that hopefully, all that money the Mormons and other H8ers spent was completely in vain. :D

One side effect if there is no appeal is that another Prop 8 could be passed and they just hope the next judge, not particularly bound by Judge Walker's decision, comes to a different conclusion

Sorry, Alex, that's not the way it works. California is indeed bound by Judge Walker's decision.

Measures don't get on the ballot by themselves. The attorney general has to approve measures, and it costs around $3 million dollars to get the necessary signatures. Technically, you are correct that a new measure would have to be enjoined by a new judge - but since that would now be done in a heartbeat, I doubt anyone's going to throw around the money needed, nor would an attorney general be likely to go along.


What I'm wondering is whether the language of prop 8 (marriage in California is between a man and a woman) remains in the Constitution, while Walker's order "merely" prevents enforcement of it.

Another curiosity is that Judge Walker's stay merely delays the Clerk from entering judgment. The decision remains, and nothing prevents the state from voluntarily obeying it. They are not forced to, but they may stop enforcing prop 8 right now if they want to, and would in no way be violating the law.


Interesting technicalities that ... as a law junkie ... I'm following with deep curiosity.






Edited to add: Apparently Alabama kept their state constitutional ban on interracial marriage on the books for 33 years after the U.S. Supreme Court rules such laws unconstitutional. Even then, the repeal got only 60% of the votes. (Perhaps the other 40% were hoping slavery would come back in vogue at some point.)

Not everybody. I didn't like it either ;)

Yes, that is true. I'm not saying what will happen but what could happen by leaving this settled at the District court level. And regardless of how likely it is that it would happen, it could happen.

If, by whatever means, California once again banned gay marriage it would be a new legal issue and you might get a judge that says "Judge Walker already handled this one" or you might get a judge that says "Judge Walker's a wanker and babbled nonsense."

But I agree it is unlikely to happen any time soon. Though isn't it the Secretary of State that has to approve ballot initiatives, not the Attorney General? If elected, I don't see Damon Dunn (or Steve Cooley if it is the Attorney General) throwing themselves in front of a train to prevent another version of Prop 8 getting on the ballot.

From what I understand (and perhaps I'm a little rusty), it is indeed the Secretary of State that approves ballot measures, but the Attorney General reviews them for the barest baseline violation of constitutionality (the Secretary of State having so such authority). This is usually a technicality, as I don't think even the most egregious ballot measures have been denied by the Attorney General ... but one which repeats a state constitutional amendment already ruled by a federal court to violate the U.S. constitution would, I assume, finally trigger the AG to act.

I want to make sure I have this right. This cannot be appealed, so the judge's decision stands, unless some new action (such as a ballot initiative or legislative action) begins the whole process again?

If so, then we're set for a while, right? Probably until 2012?

Perhaps, but I believe that Steve Cooley (the Republican candidate for AG) is on record (I believe) that he thinks Walker's decision is wrong and that it needs to be appealed to higher levels. If denied that appeal, would you rely on him to not generate the situation in which the opportunity would recur?

Anyway, like you I don't think it is all that likely. I was just pointing out that if somehow the question comes up again and it has only been dealt with at the district level then Walker has minimal precendential weight for the next judge if that judge disagrees.

Judge Walker has given his reasons for why he doesn't think the people who want to appeal have standing to appeal (and it is a good argument, though I am not devoid of confirmation bias since I like the outcome that results). But ultimately he doesn't get to make that decision, if the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court disagrees then the pro-8 people will be able to appeal. Otherwise it is left to the State of California to initiate the appeal and Brown and Schwarzenegger have said they don't plan to.

I assume that the deadline to appeal is before the next governor/AG will be in office and therefore if those went Republican they wouldn't have the option to appeal.

I guess you're right, Alex. If an AG wants to ignore the law and let others spend $3 Million to get something on the ballot, there's nothing to stop them.

Jen, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will next decide whether to do an end-run around the law and let the Prop 8 proponents appeal without legal standing to do so. If they deny them standing, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a shot at it. So it's too early to say they "cannot" appeal the decision.

My gut feeling is that the Ninth Circuit wants to hear the case, but will be mindful of the law prohibiting an appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't care about the prohibition - but would prefer to duck the case for now.



ETA: Alex, the deadline to appeal is 30 days from the date of the decision, roughly 3 weeks from now. Long before the next election.

Thanks for the clarifications. I've got my markers ready for more protest signs if needed. :cheers:

The 9th Circuit Court of appeals has granted Prop 8 proponents a stay on Judge Walker's ruling while it is appealed.

the legalese

The other thing of note in that document is that it puts the burden on the appealers to prove they have standing to do so.

I can hardly have confidence the Ninth Circuit will rule correctly on the standing issue when they just blatantly ignored the grounds for granting a stay.

:(

People piss me the hell off sometimes.

To be fair to the 9th Circuit, the order doesn't say WHY they granted the stay. I doubt that it would fall under the abuse of discretion standard.

Did you really think the 9th circuit would NOT order a stay? I mean I was hoping, but there was like a 1 in a million chance.

Now more No More Mr. Nice Gay. Sigh.

No, a stay pending appeal is pretty typical. But I'd like to know on what grounds it was granted, other than tradition. It seems to me the prudent thing to do, but it also seems to fly in the face of all the requirements for a stay.

I want nothing more from the courts than for the law to be followed.



Pfft, I also hope the Prop 8 Proponents are granted standing, so the case can actually be appealed. But I don't want the law flouted in order to get there. If they don't have standing, then that should unfortunately be the end of it.

If Judge Walker's ruling is eventually overturned, what would the status then be of any marriages from the period in between (if a stay had not been granted).

After Prop 8, I thought it pretty clear that the marriages that already existed should continue as there was no dispute that they were entirely legal during that too short window.

But for marriages allowed because a judge erroneously (technically) ruled in their favor it seems to me the case is much stronger that those marriages should be voided. That seems an acceptable justification, to me, to grant a stay.

I'm no expert, of course, so if this stay does fly in the face of established procedure or law I'd live pointers to more information. None of my usual law blog sources have expressed any real surprise at the stay or thought it technically inappropriate.

Any such marriages would be valid. It was already ruled in the Strauss case (the one involving the 18,000 pre-prop 8 marriages) that marriage rights vest upon a lawful marriage. In other words, if your marriage is legal when it happens, it remains legal no matter what.

Judge Walker's order is merely stayed. It is not invalidated. Even if it is later overturned on appeal, it is the law of the land today. If there were no stay on his injunction of Prop 8 and gay couples married by the trillions, all trillion marriages would be valid in perpetuity because they were legal at the time of marriage.


As for pointers in the right direction, the four factors a court looks to in deciding whether a stay is appropriate are: (1) whether (in this case) the Prop 8 proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

Clearly, even to the common observer, the first 3 factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit granted it based on the 4th factor, since that seems rather amorphous and can mean practically anything. But the Court of Appeal did not state any reason for granting their stay in their very brief order.

In any event, the first two factors "are the most critical," according to the Supreme Court in Nken v. Holder (2009). So I still think the stay was granted simply as a matter of tradition and prudent practice on a politically charged issue, and not in accordance with the legal factors for granting a stay.

Gay/Equality Protest Signs (humorous)

We've seen some of these before, but I thoroughly enjoyed the video.

Nanny Queen.com by Varla Jean Merman

OK now that was fvcking hilarious. :D :D

"I brought my own bottle!" :D

Heh, she's pretty talented!

OK I am now officially obsessed with Varla Jean Merman (thanks to Szczerbiak's post above). Here's a promo video for her... what a performer!!!

She has a youtube channel...... check out her mashup of The Magic Flute and Lady Gaga. She has seriously restored my faith in drag.

Jake Gyllenhaal with a beard and tank top: :D

That makes him look like Bryan Cranston.

I thought Reese Witherspoon was his beard. :confused:

Why did I wait so long to join Netflix?

I've just seen "Lilies" with Danny Gilmore and Jason Cadieux. I can't recall the last time I've been so moved by a so-called "gay film".

The Changing Faces of Gay Male Porn: Are American gay men finally diversifying?

It's discussing porn, but it doesn't use "bad" language nor have pictures (dammit), so I'd say it's 99% work safe.

Maggie Gallagher tries to get into heaven.... Love it! :)

Tee Hee, my friend Rob Tisinai's first venture into animation!

Very good. Glad they had subtitles. Is the transcript of that available?

It's preaching to the choir, but a good sermon anyway.


Somehow I doubt anyone under the influence of NOM is ever going to see that video - just as I would never have seen NOM's video if it weren't for that rebuttal.


(Can we say "rebuttal" in a gay context - or is that too racy?)

A young Ian McKellen:

Wow. He is handsome.

Hmm...my reaction was he looks just as odd 50 years ago as he does now.

I've read some speculation that the photo's a fake. And considering what they did to hideously "youthen" Magneto in the last X-Men film, I guess you can't put anything past technology.

Why would it be fake? He was already a well known stage actor by that time, and they did have cameras.

Here is a page of photos of him from the early 60's from his web page.

Thought I totally understand why one might say that, I didn't see it that way. To me, it's ammo to use against the fundies when you talk to them face to face. Of course, they will never be won over (we must wait for them to die), but we can certainly use that to graciously rub their ignorance in their face and win the (polite) argument should we be unfortunate to encounter one in person. Like, for instance, at a family gathering.

The photo seems very current in style and composition.

If it is real, it's rad.

That's it, in a nutshell. At least, that's some of the opinions I've read which, on a very casual examination of that photo, seem to have some passing merit.

I certainly haven't examined the photos you linked to before assessing that merit, and I'll do so before I form any opinion of my own. I'd like the photo to be real. I'm quite taken with its portrait of young Ian.

Odd maybe in that his eyes seem so small. But, yes, CP, quite current in style/composition.

He looks, um, old saying 'GQ' here. And, those GQ models weren't always typically handsome. It was the way they were presented sometimes.

I do get what you are saying, iSm, um, did they have color back then? LOL How old is he? Kind of reminds me of the kid from 'Sixth Sense'.

Steve, could you provide me links to where people are saying it's a fake? I want to see people's reasonings, because I'm just not seeing why this couldn't have been taken in the early 60's. And why would anyone fake something like this?

Because it looks awesome.

Varla Jean Merman will be in Silverlake in January from the 6th to the 15th!!!!

We are so having an outing.

Hmmm, is this the second time in as many months that I get to read an articulate, persuasive, logical and considered federal court decision, issued after a full evidenciary trial, that completely demolishes the government's discriminatory policies towards gays and lesbians? This time, about Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Oh, in case you hadn't heard, a federal district court judge in Riverside County has ruled Don't Ask Don't Tell unconstitutional, and has ordered the army to stop enforcing it. Turns out DADT violates Americans' free speech rights and due process rights, and is a detriment to, rather than serves, any government interest in military preparedness and military unit cohesion. Whoulda thunk?


Was this barely a month or two after that other federal district court judge in California demolished the proposition of banning gay marriage?

It's wonderful to read the decisions in these cases - intelligent analysis of trial proceedings with all available witnesses and evidence considered, the law carefully and consistently applied, and justice plainly served. On the other hand, though - the decades of time, the vast amounts of energy and money expended on litigation and trials - all for results that are of the commonest common sense of human D'UH.


:D

The Liberace Museum is Closing on October 17th
 

I know it's wrong to put this announcement in this thread because Liberace was famously heterosexual, but if you ever wanted to see his museum, you better do it soon.

In all seriousness though, if you have not been, I highly recommend it.

Aw man... I love some of the jackets he wore.

Maybe they'll be for sale now, and you can add to your collection.

Liberace. She was fabulous.

I just saw the trailer for that JWB! It looks awesome.

I recall reading that there was a deadline to file an appeal in Prop 8 and I thought it was on 9-11. Though Saturday is a bizarre day to have a court deadline.

Last I heard the state said the Governator and Brown didn't have to defend it and some of the bigots who were supporting it wanted to defend it in the "states interests". Did anything ever come of that?

There has already been an appeal filed (the notice of appeal was filed almost immediately after Walker's decision went down). There are briefing deadlines set (though I doubt that one of the due dates was a Saturday, since the courts are closed on the weekends).

Even if the bigots brief the matter, the court of appeals could rule that they do not have standing, and more or less end the lawsuit if nobody else intervenes.

Hahaha, the H8ers actually filed a suit in state court to FORCE the attorney general (Jerry Brown) to file an appeal. Um, no, he has wide discretion and the state court threw the case out. The H8ers then filed an emergency appeal of that to the state supreme court, and they too told them to take a hike.

Now the H8ers are trying to pressure the lt. governor to file an appeal while he has temporary governor authority, as the governator is currently in China. Heheh, the last time that happened was in the 70's or 80's when, teehee, Jerry Brown was governor. The then-lt. gov. signed some controversial law - but Brown simply reversed the action when he returned to the state - - so this is another act of desperation that's going nowhere.

Technically, the H8ers don't have legal standing on their own to appeal the federal district ruling of Judge Walker. They are not harmed in any way by the ruling, and they are not tasked with implementing it. Nonetheless, it's a political hot potato of unreasonable proportions -so I wouldn't be surprised if the Ninth Circuit bends the law a little bit and decides to hear the appeal.


Stay tuned ... in gay speak, it's going to be a bumpy year. :cheers:

Literally!

People literally use that term too much.

Queerantine!

Hahah I love this:

If the Tea Party Ran the Sunday Funnies

More or Less is a BBC Radio series that examines statistics used in our daily discourse.

The most recent show leads off with a discussion on attempts to quantify the percentage of the population that is gay and issues one runs into doing so.

Many interesting (to me anyway) points are raised along the way and I thought it might be interesting to some.

Yesterday, one of my customers mentioned Gay Days at Disneyland this weekend. Who knew? So, anyone going? I saw tweets from Mark and Mindy from the park, so I know they're representing the Gays of the LoT. Anyone else?

Since getting back from WDW on Monday, this is my first day to rest, and Joe and BJ have no plans to go to the park. What has become of us?

I'm not ready to be an eldergay!

No AP, no red shirt for me :( Sad panda.

Can't possibly make it. I think I stopped going years ago because it kept being the same old thing.

As it turns out, I could have gone today with some friends I'd never been to Gay Day with, including one who says he's never been to Disneyland!


But, this has turned into one of the busiest weekends of my life, and that's saying a lot. (Unless a certain project for tomorrow gets 86'd, which I'm sorta hoping for at this point.)

Nah, you're just too cool to do something that is SOOOO five years ago. ;)

Haha well I had to work yesterday. And today. But I'll be going next year :)

Maddie and I went yesterday but I forgot that is was Gay Days till we were almost there so no shirts for us. But Maddie did think it was great that there were so many red shirts in the park. I can't remember any specifically but there were so pretty funny ones as well.

Protest I didn't know about until my friend asked if I saw him on TV last night.

Things are getting' crazy up in the SLC.

Protesting might be just the thing to get me to go to the F'in UT ;)

When I clicked the link, I got a Pro Sarah Palin pop-under ad.

Something Gay happened in the news today, and then all the comment threads on the new sites turned into fvckery.

Well, scaeagles can be happy to know that (I presume) people will be saying nice things about Republicans in this thread.

Though I assume the injunction will be overturned by the 9th.

Well... some Republicans, maybe... ;)

The ball is in the DOJ's court, as far as an appeal goes. If Obama is smart, he'll order the DOJ to not appeal.

He does have that option but I think the last two years has shown that he also believes strongly in the traditional obligation of the executive to defend duly enacted legislation regardless of his personal opinion on it.

So I'd be surprised (semi-pleasantly since I generally agree with that principal but also want to see DADT ended ASAP) if the administration doesn't appeal.

Oh yes, he's so smart, his justice department appealed the federal ruling declaring DOMA unconstitutional on the same day another federal judge issued a worldwide injunction halting enforcement of DADT after she declared that homophobic relic unconstitutional.

Brilliant way to alienate your progressive base 3 weeks before an electoral debacle. Oh, and he's certainly giving new meaning to the phrase "fierce advocate."


So yes, Obama is an ass, a backstabber, a liar, and a homophobic hypocrite. If anyone remembers the slur I used a few months back that nearly got me banned from here, I reiterate it in spirit.


In appealing the DOMA decision, which it is in no way obliged to do, the Justice Dept. declares it was just doing its job. Why do I hear that line with a German accent?

Because you disagree with him on this issue?

But this is a view of executive obligation that he expressed before he was elected so it isn't really a surprise to me.

That said, they could certainly sell it better. "We disagree with the law and hope that by appealing it to the highest authorities it will settle the issue nationally in favor of equal rights for everybody rather than just having a hodgepodge of individual regional rulings with minimal precedential weight."

Yes, Alex, because as a progressive and as a gay man, he's thrown me and mine under the bus at every opportunity. He's weak, and spineless, and a lying rat bastard and a bigot and a hypocrite and a sorry excuse for a man.

Wasn't arguing with you're reasons to be angry, just was answering your rhetorical question about the German accent.

You disagree strongly and so, as is your wont to lash out in the most extreme way possible, you go to the Nazi ****** realm of rhetoric.

Didn't iSm just Goodwin this thread?

No; Alex did

Fvck Obama. Amazing how Dear Leader.. errr I mean fierce advocate drove me straight out of the Democratic Party. The DOJ is under NO obligation to defend this, and what is worse is that the DOJ defends EVERY SINGLE unconstitutional law that screws over the gays and chooses not to on other issues.

Even past presidents have chosen not to defend laws they didn't like: (posted from Americablog) George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.")

Obama threw us under the bus -multiple times now. And those stupid A-list HRC gays who throw money at him and cheer him on at cocktail parties where he asks for more money. Screw those Uncle Tom bastards. They deserve to have this country run by the brain-dead willfully-ignorant teabaggers and their bigoted bible-thumping republican cousins. Take back America? Relocate me to Canada and you can have it.

I don't much care about saying nice things about the party of republicans. To me it is about certain ideologies. Just as a couple examples, I couldn't find any joy in defendinf McCain or voting vote him two years ago, and I shot of criticism after criticism of Bush for spending too much money.

I can understand how Chernabog and ISM feel from a political standpoint. You have someone who has claimed he will be a champion for your primary cause and fails time after time to do so, all the while counting on your vote because he knows you won't turn to the other party.

This is precisely what happened during the Bush years. This is what has led to the Tea Party movement, which isn't so much against democrats as it is against what the republican party has become.

If the tea party isn't anti-Democrat, then why are they all running as Republicans?

You hit the nail on the head right there.

Obama says "I'll help you! I'll really really help you! Hope hope change change hope hope!"

You smile at Obama.

Then Obama kicks you in the balls.

While you're grimacing in pain, you ask "why did you kick me in the balls?"

Obama says "well, if you voted for the other guy, he would have kicked you in the balls three times!"

You ask, "But why did you have to kick me in the balls at all? You said you'd help me, and now my balls hurt real bad!"

Obama says, "really, until Congress outlaws ball kicking entirely, Jupiter aligns with Mars, and Jesus Christ returns to earth, I have to exercise my rights and my famed ability to rochambeau. But until then, would you like to buy me a cocktail for helping you?"

And it's not just gays. All progressives are getting kicked.

Yep, he's driven the base away from the Democratic party or - at best - left them feeling so helpless to do anything but vote against Republicans and not FOR Democrats that they are demoralized and, despite their fears of worse to come, will stay away from the polls in droves. Brilliant strategy of re-election leadership.
:rolleyes:

Now the line coming from the White House, and I can hardly contain my laughter and disgust, is that Obama's justice department must appeal decisions he personally disagrees with, such as those on DOMA and DADT, lest a future Republican president fail to appeal future decisions ruling against, for example, the constitutionality of the health care bill.

OMG. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Either he's lying through his big teeth or he's the stupidest man alive. And, I'll give him one thing, he's the most intelligent president we've had in generations.

His idea of bowing down and granting ground to the Republicans in gestures to gain acquiescence on their parts was noble the first time, and perhaps the tenth. It has never worked, and if he doesn't know by now it never will - then I take back what I just wrote about his intelligence.


Nope, the thought that some future Republican president will refrain from appealing an anti-health bill ruling simply because he pursued the vitality of unconstitutional discriminatory laws with vigor against the mutually-hated queers of America is laughable in a madman sort of way.


So, yeah, I'm pretty mad.

Because it is about getting rid of the republican establishment that they believe have moved away from fiscal conservatism. Of course in the general they will be anti democrat because they are running against democrats. The movement, however, isn't about getting rid of democrats. It's about getting rid of republicans they feel act too much like the opposition party.

Isn't it about both? They still seem to be quite vigorous in their campaigns against Democrats even once they've successfully guaranteed that the incumbent Republican will not be returning to office.

And if it is just about getting rid of RINOs why did the movement only swell to fruition at the moment that the RINOs no longer had the reins of power?

If the republican party was still fiscally conservative there would be no tea party. They would throw their full support behind the existing republican establishment. So that's why it was born. Of course there will be opposition to the democrats, but it wasn't born out of opposition to them - it was born out of opposition to the republican establishment.

Ok... then why all the anti-Obama signs at tea party rallys?

That is a good point, no denying that.

However, I still maintain that if the Republicans were fiscally responsible there would be no tea party movement. The tea partiers would be at republican rallies holding up anti-Obama signs rather than tea party rallies doing the same.

Take all this Teabagger stuff out of the gay thread, huh?







They can be Tea Partiers in the political thread if you like, but not here. :p

Question that may clarify for me your view.

Do you view the Tea Party movement as it currently exists as the same thing as the Tea Party movement that started with the Ron Paul candidacy?

I'd argue that the latter is essentially distinct at this point from the Tea Party movement re-inspired by Rick Santelli and other folks in specific response to Obama's economic stimulus and mortgage bailout plans (including many folk who had been strangely silent when faced with Bush's somewhat similar plans).

Didn't see the last post by ISM, it was on a different page. If scaeagles wants to answer int he politics thread I'll follow there.

I don't know if it's the drugs or me getting older or what but I'm not all that upset.

I can't sit and wait for the country's leaders to shift their thinking and get on board with LGBT rights. I can write letters, be a 'role model' for other gay guys wanting to come out and I can attend the odd protest or two BUT my happiness and my destiny is in my hands.

The best revenge on the close-minded politicians, churches and haters out there is to be happy. And that's what I'm striving for. If I focus on what's bad, that's all I'll get - bad news. I'm trying hard to find the good that's happening. I'm delighted in our court system right now. I'm loving the DADT ruling that came forth. I'm happy that PropH8 was found unconstitutional. I'm ecstatic that I have been talking to a wonderful man the past two months who is moving to O`ahu finally. I'm onstage making people laugh. I got a call this morning from someone who called the show 'joyful'. That's a big deal for me.

I look at these candidates running for office, these church leaders all red-faced and loud, these talking heads on cable news, even many of these gay rights advocates, and all I see is anger and misery. I've had enough of anger and misery.

Yes, I'm disappointed in our president when it comes to gay issues but I'm also aware that he has done great things for our country so far. In fact, I just read a Rolling Stone article that I mostly agree with. It's not all bad.

I disagree. My observation is that they were anti-Obama and anti-Democrat in the begining, and only became anti-establisment Republican later.

And Alex, you or anyone is free to discuss the Tea Baggers here, but you must call them Tea Baggers while in this particular thread. That's the rule. :cool:

Here's more proof about what I was saying earlier about Dear Leader:

And again, there's that rhetoric -- hey, you think I'm bad, look at what the other guy would have done!!!!

Ummmmmm how about having good policies and ethics yourself! The other guy wasn't elected, YOU were elected. So grow a fvcking spine.

Now, what's doubly stupid about the above response by Obama is that one of the very few things Georgie W. Bush did well was ..... AIDS FUNDING.

Jon Stewart took the Dem Party Chairman to task a few weeks back for their stated midterm election campaign strategy, which was - in essence - We Suck Less Than The Republicans.


Sheesh.

I'm beginning to think we need a benevolent dictator.

It Gets Better
 

Many young Broadway stars recorded a song called "It Gets Better" to raise awareness and give hope to LGBT youth contemplating drastic actions. The song was written by Jay Kuo and Blair Shepard. It will be available for purchase via iTunes on October 19th but you can see it here. Proceeds benefit The Trevor Project.

While I appreciate all of the stuff aimed towards young people not taking their own life, I really wish they would either quit using Seth Walsh as their posterboy or at least report the ENTIRE truth on the many things that contributed to his suicide.

I would totally swear fealty to Oprah!

Heard about this on the radio this morning and was just so amused by the ridiculousness of it, I had to share.

There is a group called "Love God's Way" that has come up with a list of 'Gay' music:

You can see the whole list here, but some that caught my eye include (the parenthetical notes are theirs):

• Lil'Wayne
• George Strait
• Toby Keith (cowboy)
• Ravi Shankar
• The Doors
• Phish
• Metallica
• The Rolling Stones
• Kansas
• Eminmen
• Nirvana
• Ted Nugent (loincloth)
• Frank Sinatra
• Tom Waits
• The Cramps

I think my favorite entry on the list is a band that I am not familiar with, but I loved their parenthetical note on them:

• The Butchies (lizbians)

There is also a safe list, not surprisingly dominated by Christian acts such as Jars of Clay and Michael W. Smith, but four "safe" bands that just amused me were:

1. Cyndi Lauper
2. Dresden Dolls
3. Blondie
4. Cheap Trick

Yes. Ridiculous enough to make me very skeptical.

And rightly so, as it turns out. It seems to be a strange and not very funny attempt at some sort of satire.

That website almost seems like a joke....

See my link...

Ahhh - yeah, I had this tab open a while before I got to it.

For those who enjoy "joining":

Wear purple on Wednesday, October 20 to show your support for teens who took their lives because of anti-LGBT bullying.

Wait, we don't support them do we? We think they made a poor decision (though since I do think suicide is sometimes a reasonable option I might actually support some of those decisions).

I'm wearing purple today though... does that mean I don't support suicide?

Valerie Jarrett vs. Dan Choi on the Obama Administration's hard-ball appeal tactics reversing an injunction against enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell.




Wow, outright LIES by Ms. Jarrett. Obama has NEVER said he believes DADT is "unconstitutional," and that's a legal position his Justice department is perfectly able to take in relation to appealing or not appealing the law which they already defended and lost. The "defense" of laws on the books stage is over. She's a liar about everything, and frankly Wolf is a pussy of an interviewer who either knows zip about Justice Dept. appeals or purposefully played softball.

Not only does the President have wide latitude to refuse to appeal when he personally feels a law is unconstitutional, but he also has wide latitude when it comes to laws affecting his authority as commander in chief. The problem is he does NOT think the law is unconstitutional (and has never said those words) and has refused for 2 years now to use any of his powers as commander in chief on this issue.

Lie after lie after lie. What a shameful performance. Nice going, losing a core constituency for your reelection bid in 2 years, Mr. President. Dan Choi's is hardly the only gay vote you've lost. Oh, and I'm sure you've appeased plenty of Republicans and Teabaggers by your homophobic actions. They'll be voting for you in droves now, won't they? Sheesh.

"Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual" by Roy Zimmerman

It's a little past (or "passed," thank you very much Missus Thomas) its use-by date, but completely worth it.

Unless we get whiplash from the way things turn around, I will not be surprised if Obama is a one-termer.

Not that I'm voting for Sarah Palin, mind you. But I am not voting for Obama either. And, frankly, the Dems deserve to be a$$raped in next month's elections.

.... with no lube.

I think I've gotten to the point that I'll be actively campaigning for his primary challenger, whomever that might be.

If it came down to Obama vs Palin - who would you vote for?

It doesn't much matter. I'd decline to vote. But in California, it will go for Obama no matter what. So my protest vote can be a vote of conscience and not in any way be a vote for whomever the Republican candidate is.


He's not been a total failure as a president. He and the Congress have actually had a lot of successes and accomplishments, which they are beyond lame at communicating.

But he's an incredible disappointment to me as a progressive (even though he was always clearly a center/right moderate), and as a gay man he's been an affront to my very being, over and over and over and over. I could hardly loathe the man more if I were a teabagger.


Er, I mean a Tea Partier.


Silly me, I already am a teabagger. :cool:

Despite not being a fan of Obama at this moment, I'd say I'd vote for him in 2012. To me, it would feel like not voting for him is a vote for Palin.

If fvcking SARAH PALIN is elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I will be SO GODDAMNED PISSED at anyone who didn't vote, because I WILL move out of the country. No sh!t.

There is a precedent to defending the previous administration's laws. Obama wants his health care bill defended in the next administration (which WILL be attacked, guaranteed) so he is defending this. Even Bush defended the Family & Medical Leave Act that was a landmark Clinton victory.

If you think you are punishing democrats by not voting for them, remember that you have to put up with whoever gets into office. You want to cut off your nose to spite your face? It wasn't that long ago that we lived in Bush's America and yet it's forgotten already.

I know this issue hits very close to home for all of you but take a second to think what those conservatives think about you...and how happy you are making them right now. If Dems lose, you lose even more. Isn't that blatantly obvious??

Well, we don't have any democrats to punish in this State's current election cycle (not for slights to gay issues anyway). Barbara Boxer has been a staunch and consistent supporter, and Jerry Brown's practically a gay hero for his bold stand on Prop. 8.

But you have to remember how All-or-Nothing works. Our vote doesn't count towards the total unless we happen to vote for the winner. Sure, if enough people vote for the loser, the loser becomes the winner. But the outcome of presidential elections in California has been a non-surprise for decades. Obama will not be losing to Sarah Palin in 2010 even if every fag in WeHo and San Francisco votes for Palin.

And stop with the Palin already. It's a scare tactic. Since when did she become the Republican nominee rather than the most drastic example people can think of to illustrate a fear point?

You made me look. She was a viable nominee about a year ago. Now, she's probably not, though she's still on the short list. In 2 years, who knows?

Regarding CA - yes, I know. But the more people tout ideas like this, the more they spread to places like Ohio.

Rest assured, while I will not vote for him in the primary, I will hold my nose and vote for him in the general if he wins renomination.

I'd still rather have Him than a Republican in the white house any day.

I'm gonna vote for who ever the cute hottie is in JW's avatar on election day in 2012. ;)

I'm not. I hear he's all for stacking our courts with tops. We need balance.

Nope, sorry - sounds good to me.

Montreal was really, really pretty, with good food, a fun amusement park, wonderful people, and gay marriage. Yes, if Sarah Palin gets elected, we can start Le Bar de Demain (www.loungeoftomorrow.ca) ;)

To me it is an issue of choosing between a liar and a homophobe. If you donated money and spent time to get the liar elected before being lied to, how can you in good conscience vote for him again? That's the Democratic strategy -- it's better to be punched in the face than kicked in the balls. If the Dems lose, we lose what exactly, if neither side is able to help us? Honestly, for financial policy I don't agree with the Dems anyway.

For iSm:

I'm all for the hot guys but that's a weird photo. Weird angle or something to it.

The camera is aiming down from above. He's looking up.

In fact, most photographers will try to photograph you from above with you looking up if they want to make you look more attractive, and from below looking down if they want to make you less so.

Um, it's a trick that's working for me in this photo. Thanks for the big version, JayDub.


(now, if you can get the life-size delivered by Sunday, that would be cool)

Because that's the angle you see as he gives you head, right? :evil:

Don't you just love looking in the eyes of someone who's ....


oh wait. um, sorry.







But hey, this IS the Gay Thread. ;)

Because my right to choose is still part of the Democratic platform and it's very much not part of the other side. I spent a lot of time and energy campaigning against Prop 8 before the election... more than many gay people I know.. while I was going to school full time. I sacrificed papers and grades to campaign against it*.

When it comes down to it, in my mind my right to choose will trump your right to get married. I'm selfish like that. I also have confidence that gay marriage will be legal, and soon regardless of who is in office. I'm not so sure Row v. Wade won't be overturned.

So that's how I'll continue to vote for Democrats or liberals.

Before anyone jumps all over me ask yourself what you did to stop Prop 8 from passing, what you would do to protect my right to choose and what's more important to you.

*Luckily my PoliSci teacher gave me an extension after the fact since I was taking part of the political process but I didn't ask before, I emailed him after it was already late.

I agree with BTD. While I'm pissed at Obama, there are far too many important reasons to keep voting Democrat - even if that means returning Obama to office.

Well, I'm sold. I'll now be voting for Sarah Palin in 2012. I think living abroad would be a wonderful life-changing experience for CP, GD, and the young child (whose name I have forgotten; but it could be worse, I once forgot my sister had two children and not just one).

T-Bone

Don't forget Iowa legalized gay marriage before we did.

Well I didn't say I'd be voting for Palin!!!! I'll still vote for the person I think best shares my views. I understand of course that for all intents and purposes you only have a choice between two "real" people but I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. If I "waste" my vote on another candidate am I really being that selfish?

Yes, yes! We could all go together! Then the LoT commune will be one step closer to reality. It's all part of my gay agenda! :D ;)

I know it's been done before, but....
 

Cherny's Gay Agenda:

11:00am Wake.
11:15am Pearls Dissolved In Vinegar For Breakfast-In-Bed
11:30am Hot Workout with Personal Trainer
12:30pm Get Out Of Bed And Go To Gym
01:00pm Hot Workout with Personal Trainer
02:00pm Watch "The Women"
04:00pm Afternoon Nap with Evian and WitchHazel Eye-Mask for that Bright-eyed look
06:00pm Dinner With Liza M (That's Liza With A "Z" ya'know)
08:00pm Organise LoT Commune
10:00pm Workout With Personal Trainer
11:00pm Get out of bed, Clean teeth, Douche (Shower - I'm learning French, remember), Go back to bed for Beauty Sleep.

Hells yes!!! Plus, since gays control the weather, I'll make more weather formations like this! :)

Oh my Goddess!!!

Love the move where he strokes the, um, thunderstorm shaft and then cups the, ahem, oh hell i don't know what you'd call them in meteorological terms. :p

Dark storm clouds. Heavy, black, and pendulous.

Is that a reference to the Rocky Horror Criminologist, or to Kevy?

I only have personal knowledge of one, not the other.

You promised not to tell!

And I didn't realize you didn't know anything about RHPS

:blush:

Arkansas school board member Clint McCance believes "queers" and "fags" should kill themselves—if they don't get AIDS and die first.

Ignorant fool should be immediately removed from his post.

And then there's the ironically named Tony Perkins, who knows "from the social science that they [gay teens] have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict."

A Facebook group has been started to get this guy fired. As of this post, about 20,000 people have joined.

Except they can't fire him. He's an elected official. He has to be recalled. That's not an easy prospect.

The Board has responded with:MSNBC's Thomas Roberts talks with Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times about Clint McCance.

The motherfukker's resigning! :D

Yep. Cool. That's the way it's supposed to work. I'm very happy. :D

You can watch him make the announcement on AC360.

My translation of his comments:
Aw crap! People found out what a sub-human piece of shït I really am and now the School Board is making me resign. I still hate faggots and queers, of course, but I better make it look like I'm contrite. My wife made me wear this sweater.

Have you heard about this Andrew Shirvell psycho?
Anderson Cooper 360 interviews the nutjob
More of AC360 discussing obvious closet-case Shirvell with CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin
Jason Jones on The Daily Show interviewing him

As much as I do think he's a nutjob with SOME sort of personal issue, the "he's a closet case" stuff irks me. Call him an asshole and a bigot, because that's what his actions make him out to be. But playing the "closet case" card just smacks of using sexuality as a means to shame someone. "Oh yeah? Well you're fag!"

I'm sure people feel it's a "taste of your own medicine" kinda thing, but I still don't like it.

I think it's a case where, quite seriously, I've seen dozens upon dozens of gay mens' gaydar go off when he speaks. Maybe he's not, and I'm sure the theories that his motivation is scorned-loverhood are way off base. Closet case may just be vengeful thinking, but there IS such a thing as gaydar - and it often works.

In any event, the Daily Show had the best run-in with Shirvell. He did not seem to get that he was the brunt of their joke, and he's an idiot as well as a closet case.

It's a very funny piece, and the place that seems to come up first on a google search to view it is here.

Enjoy.

I am not saying "ñah ñah ñah you're a homo too." It may be a cliché but it's often true that the guy who screams "fag" the loudest turns out to be one. Ted Haggard, Eddie Long, George Rekers, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., and countless Catholic priests come to mind. This is such a classic case of that* it's almost laughable. I honestly think Shirvell is attracted to Armstrong and doesn't know what to do with himself. Look at Shirvell's actions. He's singled out this one gay kid, is stalking him, and is totally obsessing over him.


*I'm blanking on the psychological term... displacement? sublimation? projection?

Oh, I understand all that. I just still don't like it as a response. I mean, isn't the whole point that one's sexuality is one's own business? That no one should be ridiculed because of their sexuality? Criticizing this guy for publicly demeaning someone because of that person's sexuality...by publicly demeaning him about his sexuality? Doesn't jive. And make no mistake, making armchair clinical diagnoses of psychological flaws like projection is demeaning.

Plus, I think it is a certain amount of confirmation bias. Yes, there have been many cases of anti-gay mouthpieces who turn out to be gay themselves. And each time that happens they immediately become a "prominent" anti-gay mouthpiece regardless of how prominent they were before (some were very, some not so much). Considering there are hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-gay activists I'm not sure it even counts as a real trend.

I don't see it that way. If I was picketing, stalking, and created a blog devoted to pointing out how fat one guy is, wouldn't you say something like, "Uh dude, you're fat too." That's not mocking me because I'm fat, that's pointing out the ridiculousness of my behavior.

...and the Awesome Mom of the Week award goes to this lady!

No, because I have no idea if you're fat (I have no idea what you look like, for a long time I thought that basketball player avatar you had was you). So for me, it'd be me saying "well, since you're so mean to fat people you must be fat yourself."

Besides, personally, the self-loathing gaybasher is not a person that increases my opposition to them, but rather tends to increase my empathy for them (while not lessening my disagreement). Which I think is the opposite intended result when someone says "and I bet he's queer too!"

Being fat is a visible public fact, as much as one is a brunette or tall. Being gay is a personal fact. Part of what is troubling about being called gay is that someone is treading on your personal ground.

Maybe he is gay. Maybe he's bisexual. Maybe he has had lovers, maybe he's a virgin. Maybe he was abused as a child. Maybe he's battling his own internal war. You don't know him, and he's probably a lot more complicated than one three-letter word. Calling him gay dismisses him as much as it dismisses anyone else. If you don't want this for yourself, don't propagate it. Call him a crazy asshole instead.

I concur!

She sho' is!

To go back to Shirvell for a moment (though I agree Scooby Doo mom is rad) - -

Nope. Have to agree with SM here. Alex's point is apples to oranges. No one in the gay blogosphere said he was gay until he was interviewed on TV and came off as GAY and set off the world's collective gaydar not simply from the circumstances (which set the Gaydar to "scan mode"), but from his speech patterns and body language (which set the Gaydar to "High Alert").


If he's a straight man, then perhaps the source of his cyber bullying propensities is that he was constantly beat up in school for being such a total fag. But more than likely, he's gay, it's completely relevant and in fact important to the subject matter at hand, and the world's collective gaydar readings are pretty accurate.

I'd call bull**** on that but I doubt it would do any good.

Somehow I doubt that Rand Paul saying 'we can tell by looking at him he's a faggot' would be taken so well with a shrug and a "well of course you can tell just by looking."

I'm not saying you're wrong. You might be, but without any actual evidence it is just ad hominem that contributes nothing to the topic.

Maybe he's one of those metrosexuals.

What he said.

There's a word for this - stereotyping.

Isn't this type of behavior what we're supposed to be avoiding?

No. To put a fine but pertinent point on it, it's the type of behavior you're supposed to be avoiding. ("you're" as in "you straight folk").


Not all gays see it this way, but I do. Black people can use the "N" word all the damn day long, and I can say "fag" and "that's so gay" with abandon. And I can call Andrew Shirvell a mincing fairy faggot because he behaves so stereotypically like one. But perhaps it's less pc if straight people do the same.


Gays have a certain licence. Oh, I admit it reeks of hypocrisy and double-standards and is certainly far from politically correct. But I for one am not one to adhere to pc uber alis.


Perhaps it takes one to know one - but when gays say Shirvell is a fag, I just take that as authoritative rather than bigoted. Straights' Mileage May Vary. :p

Not in my book, and I really think it depends on the stereotype. Stereotypes come from somewhere. A guy can love Cher, liberally use the phrase "girl!", work as a hairdresser AND be straight. But you can safely assume he's gay unless proven otherwise, instead of the other way around.

That's pretty much how gaydar works, and why Europeans throw off my gaydar bigtime -- I'm not up and up on how gay europeans stereotypically act that is different from straight ones.

On the other hand, we shouldn't safely assume that an Arab is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Again, it just depends on the stereotype.

And yes, for the record, I think that Shirvell is a closeted homo. BIG TIME. And I got that from watching the Daily Show segment, not just because he had a bizarre blog. When you are gay, you are really, really attuned to this stuff. It isn't meant as a slight that he's gay, it is meant simply to show that he's a hypocrite.

I assume the mechanism on which it depends is "whether I engage in it or not"?

That's putting the cart before the horse, Alex. Obviously if one considers a stereotype to be accurate and harmless, one is apt to use it* - while if one considers a different stereotype to be faulty and harmful, one is apt to avoid it.








* or at least not studiously avoid using it.

No, I am not that egotistical.

I did however do a quick google search and found this to be interesting:

Just interesting food for thought.

Ok, let's use that. The situation we're talking about here violated almost every one of those bullet points for making a stereotype useful. A) Because it isn't being applied pre-emptively to a group but post hoc to an individual, and B) I'm not sure how there's much value in a "swishy men are gay" stereotype (and thought that one was considered bad).

And if this were an isolated case I probably wouldn't care much. But I'd say at least 90% of the time that some man (gay bashing women don't ever seem to get pre-emptively labeled as self-loathing lesbians) comes to prominence for anti-gay remarks or actions, someone is out there adding "and he's obviously a closeted self-loathing homo."

Only now it seems you're the one applying your observations about a group to a single individual. People aren't stereotyping Shirvell as gay simply because so many extreme gay-bashers turn out to be self-loathers, but primarily on observation of him as an individual who acts and speaks in a stereotypically gay manner. So whether it's applied to gay-bashers "90% of the time" is irrelevant to how it's being applied in this particular case.

It still using his sexual identity as an attack. It's not a friendly, "What up my fag homie!" It's pointedly, "You're a fvcking pathetic closet case." And all that says is, "Yup, sexuality is fair game when trying to publicly shame someone" which I find pretty distasteful, no matter the orientation of the person it's coming from.

Just my two cents... To me, it's not attacking his sexuality, but his hypocrisy.

Exactly. If he were on a crusade about anti-gang violence, I would not approve of anyone calling him a queer.

When someone is practicing hypocrisy, one has no choice but to point out the state of the individual that gives rise to it. In this case, the observation that Shirvell is gay himself is absolutely necessary to the case against him.

Except to get to the point of hypocrisy you first have to make an armchair call about his sexuality.

Plus, the hypocrisy is irrelevant. What he's done is no more or less offensive if he's straight or gay. He's a bigoted asshole and a bully either way.

I guess the disconnect here is in "I think he's gay therefore it is ok to judge him for being gay and anti-gay."

To me (and presumably to others) whether you think he's gay has little to do with he actually is gay and conforming to a stereotype is not evidence.

But whatever, it is enlightening to learn that it is ok to just take as fact that a swishy man (whatever that may mean to the individual observer) is gay and then treat him accordingly.

For the record, Alex, I'm not a corgi.*
:D




*Then again, we've met so the joke only half works. If at all.

You're not as cute and fluffy as I'm imagined then.

Twice as cute, half as fluffy

Ok... What if there was a man who was preaching discrimination and hatred against black people. Several African-Americans state they suspect that he is, in fact, a light skined African-American himself who is "passing" and call him out on his hypocrisy. Are they then being racist?

Yes.

ETA: I'll amend that. Would I specifically apply the term "racist"? No. Nor would I (and I have not) apply the term "anti gay" or "homophobic" or "gay bashing" to calling Shirvell a closet case. But I still call it counterproductive and borderline offensive.

Alright, well agree to disagree then.


Perhaps it might be helpful to consider that all the gay people posting in this thread see it as perfectly appropriate to call Shirvell out as a self-loathing homo, while all the straight people do not.


I just know that if Welshmen felt a certain way about doings in Wales, and I, being from Los Angeles, saw it differently - - I might give some credence to the notion that the Welshman groks something I don't.

The big disconnect is that you seem to be saying that since you think he is gay, that he is gay. And therefore can be treated appropriately.

Which, from my point of view is nonsensical.

I'd have no problem with calling him out (though I wouldn't think it necessarily relevant) if we knew him to be gay. Just because you say he is does not, to me, mean he is. And therefore saying he should be branded a hypocrite does not strike me as fine regardless of how ok all the gay people are with it.

So if Shirvell comes out of the closet, can we hit him with our purses then?
:D

What is this "treated appropriately" stuff, Alex? How are you going to treat him differently if he is gay? To me, that's been the most disturbing statement in this thread - and now that you've made it (at least) twice, I'm going to ask what you mean by that.


If he's gay, then he's a hypocrite as well as a bigoted bully. That may change how we regard him, but is that all you mean by "treated appropriately?" Or do you intend that he receive stiffer punishment if he's also a hypocrite? Or a certain kind of stiffer punishment if he's gay? :p

Yes, though then I'll debate on whether being a gay gay-basher is necessarily hypocrisy (it isn't and it is always good to throw about a Samuel Johnson quote).

Yes, Steve. Be scared. Whenever I find out someone is gay I go beat them with rocks while rolling them in melted Tootsie rolls and making buttsex jokes.

You gave an example of what I mean in what I've just quoted. First sentence. All I mean is that because you think he's gay, it is apparently ok to treat him as gay, whatever that means. Maybe it is just that you'll call him different names on message boads. Maybe it is that you'll view his positions as unworthy of consideration because he's just a self loathing fag whereas you'd respond differently if he were simply a self-rightous douche. Maybe it means I'll campaign for him to be the grand marshall of next year's WeHo Halloween parade.

My issue is not with what it means if he's gay. My issue is with it being apparently ok to determine he's gay by vote.

Ah, not by vote, sir, by the scientifically accurate "ping" of world-consensus gaydar.


There's a difference. Pfft.

Talking like will get you a date in some circles.

You and I have very different definitions of the word hypocrisy.

Or, as Inigo Montoya was fond of saying, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

I use the dictionary version.

Hypocrisy is to claim values that you don't actually hold. An alcoholic can advocate sobriety without being a hypocrite. A gay man can view homosexuality as wrong without being a hypocrite. A serial adulterer can believe adultery should be punished without being a hypocrite. A Catholic priest can commit sin without being a hypocrite.

Failing to live up to your own values is not hypocrisy. Plus, even if this guy is gay in that he is sexually and emotionally attracted to men, there's no evidence I've yet seen offered beyond he's a bit fey, that he is even violating his own values if he isn't acting on the emotions he feels.

So, I am perfectly well aware of what the word hypocrisy means. Just as I am perfectly well aware of how often it is misused.

Now, to break out the Samuel Johnson quote, which may be less exciting than a Princess Bride quote:

I think it's very illuminating that gay people here think of it one way and the straights think of it another way.

I'd suggest that Teh Gays (c) remember that the important audience in public BS like this is Straight People Who Are Still Unsure About Whether Gays Are OK Or Not. I think that straights are going to see it the way we're seeing it and it's not helpful to your side. You are sounding like being gay is something people can be labeled as seemingly randomly (most people's gaydar is no good and they aren't going to believe a bunch of gays when they point at people and yell "He's gay!"). That plus everything else that's been said here.

Also, the point of whether he's gay or not is completely moot. No one should care whether he's gay or not - that's the point of equality. What matters is what he's saying.

Debate facts, not personalities. As Alex said, Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Besides, if one believes that being gay is an illness or curse that needs curing, then this asshole is a HERO for facing his issues head on, right?

ETA - Alex beat me to it.

PS: the kid who went as Daphne was CUTE :D

CP, I think you also must consider venue. I get the strong impression from the places on the internet where I've seen every gay's gaydar go off for Mr. Shirvell that the freedom to express that cheeky opinion was given free reign because they are gay-centric sites where we can have a little fun.

Similarly, here on the LoT, I don't think there would be much actual debate about Shirvell's disgustingness. We found some disagreement as to whether the "he's gay" pronouncement is appropriate, and so we ran with that.

I'm pretty sure not many homos would be so loose with that allegation on a news site or a media interview, or even on uber-public sites like facebook or twitter. I can't speak for every queer in America, but I realize the limitations such an allegations would put on my argument if I were seriously debating the merits of Shirvell's behavior in an impartial forum.


We're just having a little more fun with it here on the LoT, as we've had at other gay-friendly places. Whether he's gay cannot be ascertained by a single theory of motive, or by his mannerisms or speech patterns. Yes, yes, all true. But c'mon. Depending on where we are when our collective gaydar goes off the charts, we're going to be comfortable saying that - and thus further calling Shirvell out as a self-loathing hypocrite. The LoT being one of those places.


Oh, and despite Alex's handy dictionary definition of hypocrisy, I contend any self-loathing gay is guilty of it. As for Shirvell in particular, it doesn't matter if he's a homo-hater not having gay sex - - he IS acting on his homosexuality via his obsession with Armstrong. Just not in a very healthy way. D'uh. Self-loathing gays don't act out in healthy ways in many areas of their lives. If you want to find the technical term for that psychosis, I'll be happy to consider ceding hypocrisy.

Wow I came back to this thread to post a really good must-see Rachel Maddow clip on the right-wing media and now I gotta play catch up :) After I have some coffee. :D

PS Gn2Dlnd, your boyfriend John Hodgman is in that clip.

Except for the Daily Show I haven't seen a single opinion piece that HASN'T gone the route of calling him a closet case.

Really? Um, the most extensive coverage was done by Anderson Cooper over at CNN and on his own show. He never intimated any such thing, much less called him out for that.


(Though of course, many have accused Anderson of it ;) )

Well, I'm going to contend he's guilty of clipper ship since apparently what words mean isn't relevant and so we can just pick the ones we like.

And you know this how? If he isn't gay he's doing the exact same thing but apparently being gay is not his motivation for it. Whatever that motivation is would, I presume, be a motivation a gay man can have as well.

A policy of using whatever word happens to be at hand when you don't know the right word for what you're talking about is going to cause pointless debate. I know it is a weird foible, but a lot of people start on the assumption that when someone uses a word they mean the word they say.

Clipper Ship it is then!

My Webster's New World Dictionary disagrees with you:

Um, wait, what is happening?

Has Alex just been pwned on a dictionary-off?

Well, if we want to dictionary-off:

Random House:
- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

The American Heritage Dictionary
- the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Collins English Dictionary
- the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety

Oxford English Dictionary
- assuming a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclination, especially in respect of religious life or belief.

But that's moot, because I believe the definition given by JWBear agrees with me more than him.

If simply pretending to be what you're not is hypocrisy then the word has no distinct meaning, it is simply a synonym for lying or misrepresentation. I have no doubt that Shirvell is a hypocrite on many fronts.

Now, denying or hiding homosexuality to avoid the repercussions of your own claimed beliefs would be hypocritical. But if it is your view that being gay is a sin and should in every way be suppressed then in every way suppressing your own homosexuality would not be hypocritical. Being unaware or unable to recognize your own homosexuality is not hypocritical.

To use the definition of hypocrite (as opposed to hypocrisy) from JWBear's preferred dictionary:

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Being gay, not telling people, and engaging in gay bashing does not inherently meet either of those definitions. That is not to say that many people in that situation aren't hypocrites but it is not enough to simply show that a person espousing anti-gay positions is himself gay. Failing to live up to your own ideals is not hypocrisy, except insofar as we define the word so broadly that it no longer has any useful meaning.

And if simply lying about some aspect of yourself is hypocrisy (to stop the definition JW provided after 7 words) then that is again to broaden the word beyond value as it is simply an synonym for lying.

No, no, no, Alex, you are, I believe, missing a big point. Shirvell is not gay bashing. His blog and actions are not against homosexuals in general. He is stalking and blogging about one particular gay man. This reeks of obsession in the same way his persona reeks of gay.

Under the assumption he is gay, then his completely gay action of stalking and obsessing over a particular gay man while pretending not to be gay and not to be obsessed with him for that reason is hypocritical.

Granted, we have no real idea whether Shirvell is gay. He may just be, to paraphrase Sulu, a douchebag. But we gays know a gay when we see and hear one so freaking obviously, and Shirvell is not banned from setting foot on campus* because he's a general gay-basher. He's a stalker.



* the ban has been modified to allow him on campus, but he is to have no contact with Mr. Armstrong, his sole and exclusive victim.




As for the meaning of the word hypocrisy, I suggest it has simply morphed over time to encompass subsidiary but highly related concepts. The English language is constantly morphing in this fashion, and that's generally (though not always) a good thing.


Gay used to mean Happy.

Conversly, I think the definitions you posted agree with my point as well. It's all semantics and splitting hairs, and has very little to do with the point at hand IMO.

I certainly think that is true in his case.

Ok (I don't really buy that first part since while he's targeting a single gay man he is doing it in terms critical of homosexuals), but the whole part about what "hypocrisy" means was started by someone questioning my contention that a gay gay basher is not inherently hypocritical.

So divorce Shirvell from my responses and the poitns remain the same and valid in the original context.

And even further, even if Shirvell is gay he may not be doing what you say because he himself may be unaware (through confusion or simple pyschological inacapacity) of his homosexuality.

Still not hypocrisy. Just lying. Let's use a milder sitcom plot as a surrogate. Maybe one from a movie you recently enjoyed.

The male characters, let's call him Kick-Ass, has a crush on a girl who he feels barely knows he's alive. He pretends to be gay so that she'll have no reason to thinks he's sexually obsessed with her and under this ruse manages to be with her wherever she is, doing what she's doing and completely taking advantage of her to even the extent of getting to see her naked.

Is he a hypocrite? Or just a liar? As with Shirvell (under your assumption) he's denying his sexuality in order to mask the intention of his actions.


I'm generally quite the descriptivist when it comes to usage, but I have issues with just saying "well, hypocrisy has been redefined in common useage to include entirely new things." Those being:

1. Those entirely new things already had perfectly good words for them (liar, dissembler, self deluding, etc.)
2. This leaves no good word for actual hypocrisy.
3. And because I think frequently the misuse of the word is intentionally designed to confuse so as to dismiss out of hand as hypocrisy something that would otherwise have to be addressed more substantively.

Again, on what evidence other than that you think he fits some stereotype of a swishy fag? I know, gays just know. But if I accepted that I'd be down at Mistress Fantasia's having my palm read so that I'd make a killing on the stock market.

The key fact being that I'm right and you're wrong. As long as we can agree on that it'll all be good. Don't make me go to Aquinas, putting out the Samuel Johnson quote was onerous enough.

But when the answer to "why is it relevant whether he's gay?" is "because if he is then he's a hypocrite (with the implication that this somehow makes his behavior worse)" then I think the misuse of the word is pretty well on point.

I'd like to weigh in on this with sincerity and not much joking. (Although levity is often vital to me.)

The focus should be on the fact that what he did was wrong; especially when you consider what his position (Assistant AG) is. I say is because he was reinstated today.

When it comes down to it, I don't care if he's a gay or not. It comes down to what kind of jerk this guy is on the inside to let this sort of bullying, harassment occur and whether this kind of thinking will affect his job and other people he may have to deal with in the future.

Yes, there is a huge amount of anti-gay loudmouths who are out there that are gay. But I see Alex and GD's point, I don't know if he's gay for sure (although my gaydar tells me he is) and I don't really care, it's only relevant to him and his therapist (if he has one). Deep down (and here comes the softie Brad) I think this guy needs help. If he is gay, he's in a lot of pain. If not, then he needs to sort out the way he deals with people.

I'd rather focus on getting this guy removed from his Asst AG position.

When you grow up gay and so much energy is spent on whether someone else is a compatible sexual partner, you get to be pretty finely attuned to the gaydar. It becomes second nature. Yes, there are stereotypes, but those stereotypes do serve a purpose. Of course there are people outside of those stereotypes. Of course gaydar doesn't always work. But there's a lot more to it than just blind luck.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree? That doesn't seem the least bit gay? Come on. It may not be definitive, but it seems relatively clear to everyone but him. There's just a really, really good chance.

So the distinction is just whether he's out to himself or not? I can kind of see that, i.e. he's not a hypocrite because he's criticizing other people for being gay, and he doesn't think he's gay. But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

Here's my perspective:

I can't find details, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the recent gay bullying related suicides was by a kid who was not gay, but was subjected to "your gay!" bullsh*t because he fit some gay stereotype or another.

Around these parts I may be butch-by-comparison. But (prepare for the shock of a lfetime), in average American circles I am not the paradigm of hetero-male-machismo. And, for my entire life, because I have the audacity to not spend 100% of my time thinking and talking about tits and pro wrestling, I've had the "gay" label attached to me. Hell, my college roommate who walked in on me and CP while "indisposed" and caught me snooping through his considerable collection of hetero porn, STILL was apparently speculating to everyone else in the dorm that I was gay. Because...I don't know. My voice isn't deep enough? I don't know what to do with my hands while talking? I'm not threatened to spend time with other males who aren't macho enough? Who know, and who gives a sh*t?

So yeah, I'm a little touchy when it comes to the subject of "gaydar" and swishiness.

I'll let y'all fight over whether it fits the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to be passing around "It Gets Better" videos while out of the other side of your mouth you're merrily reinforcing that it's okay to label people based on gay stereotypes. Whatever you want to call it, I don't like it and I'm going to call you on it every time.

Please tell me that that was an attempt at humor.

I see where you are coming from, but I still have to disagree with you. It's much more than labeling someone based on stereotypes. And unless you have lived the life of a gay person, it's really not something you can truly grasp. While you have been mistaken for gay, you are a heterosexual male. You simply do not have the life experiences we do, and you can't see the world through the lens of ours. This is true of any minority; there are points of view you just can't comprehend unless you belong to that group.

Liar?

If I said to you right now that I'm not straight then went home and had an orgy with the Golden State Warriors dance squad, that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. Just a liar.

If Larry Craig was saying that gay activities are shameful and shouldn't be acted on no matter what while he himself shamelessly pursued that same activities. Then he's a hypocrite.

If he held that position and despite personal struggle to resist the urge, still had gay sex then he's not a hypocrite, he's merely failed to live up to his own ideals. Now, it would be great if when he told people homosexuality is a behavior that should be resisted he shared the story of his own struggles and personal failures, but not doing so still doesn't make it hypocrisy.

Maybe based on the second part, but not because of the first part. You may think the collective gay gaydar is near infallible but I've not seen great evidence of that based on the number of gay men I watched hit on my step father over the years (and if anyone responds the way I suspect someone might we'll just be back to saying that whether someone is gay is determined by vote regardless of how that person actually lives and thinks).

But regardless, there is a huge difference between "these factors increase the likelihood he is gay" (and I don't deny that such a calculation could be done) and "that man is gay because of those factors." Especially when once his homosexuality becomes assumed it is used to make other arguments about his character, motivations, and the meaning of his actions.

It just feels to me like a more local version of the old news analysis trick of saying "I don't like to speculate but maybe X is true" and then after five minutes of discussion they just begin to proceed with it no longer being speculation but fact. Even when the initial speculation ends up being correct, to me it is inimical to honest discussion.

Yes, but with the side benefit of being wrapped around truth. I'm right, you're wrong. If that weren't the case I'd be arguing your side.

I can accept that (though I didn't realize that gays had a single monolithic life experience that taught them all the exact same things). I don't accept that it extends to the idea that you can tell with precision worthy of treating as fact--through a TV screen, no less--who is gay.

Billy Lucas

Well, you even had a reputation around here for being the gayest straight man. And I think a lot of gay guys I knew thought you were gay through wishful thinking. ;)


I don't mind you calling us on it. It strict terms, you are absolutely correct. It's more likely US who are being hypocritical when we 'ping' that Shirvell is gay because of how he comes off. And likely we all know that, but we also like to be silly and just a little bit bitchy. ;)

More seriously, most gays are also a bit sensitized to those railing against homosexuality the loudest being despicable closet cases, and we enjoy seeing that revealed by whatever means. Not only for the sheer joy of it - but because the more that tendency comes to light, the more the loud-mouthiest gay haters who aren't gay might shut up for fear of seeming absolutely gay.

You're right...no more than YOU can possibly comprehend what it's like to continually through adolescence have your sexuality wrongly assailed.

I'm Jewish, trust me, I'm well versed in what it's like to be the target of bigotry.

Go ahead and tell Billy Lucas's parents (thanks GC) that, really, Billy shouldn't have been whining, he had no idea what REAL persecution is.

Where did that come from?! That has nothing to do with what I said.

Well... Whatever makes you happy.

I used to get bullied for being abnormally tall. It was so freaking crazy. I was so Not Tall, but thug kids kept thinking I was - maybe because I was such a big character. Whatever, I used to get my ass handed to me constantly for having my head in the clouds.

Sigh - I don't think anyone can ever understand the heartache of being thought tall when I was so diligently short. It was a nightmare. Only those of us who went through it can possibly understand.





ok, just havin' a little fun. That's not a parody aimed with malice at anyone particular

Try growing up Jehovah's Witness - Hellish.

But think of the positives - Gay = fashion, Jewish = Chosen, Jehovah's Witness = Ringing doorbells well.

Are you confusing being BULLIED for being gay versus just "being gay"? I mean, it's always slightly awkward when clients ask me if I'm married (granted, they're usually the elderly ones with no gaydar), but I just say no and shrug it off. I'm pretty confident in my sexuality so who gives a flying poobah. Plus, they aren't bullying me about it.

I know swishy men who are straight but they're confident in their sexuality so it doesn't bug them what other people think.

Unfortunately, teens aren't confident about much of anything (hence the "it gets better" campaign). Did Billy Lucas kill himself because he was perceived as gay, or because he was a) bullied because of that perception and/or b) self-loathing because of all the religious hatred? If there's no problem with being gay, who cares how you are perceived? Is it the difference between being a little annoyed and being "assailed" due to perceived sexuality?

Exactly, next time if you just remember that if you disagree with me then you are wrong, it will save you a lot of time and effort.

You know, there is another word for that.

Wait. What was the first word?

Yes, there is. But not the one you're thinking (it doesn't mean what you think it means).

Use your imagination...

No, that's three words

I was a nerd, geek, and slightly effeminate. Trust me, it was bullying. I was fortunate that I never had to deal with anyone who was a seriously sociopathic bully, but yes, my entire school existence was underscored by regular low-grade bullying, continually being derided for appearing "faggy" being among the many ugly things thrown my way.

I was a well adjusted kid with and relatively secure. I actually still remember clearly the day it struck me, "Wait a minute, how is it that you calling me gay is supposed to be an insult? If it's true, then you're just calling me what I am, so whatever. If it's not true, then I know it's not true, so who gives a crap?"

But you know what? Day in, day out knowing that, no matter what, there are people who are simply going to refuse to believe what you know to be true about your own identity sucks. It wears you down. And if JW is going to play the "you're not in my shoes card" then this is where I'm playing it. I don't care how secure in your sexuality (or any aspect of your personality) you are, years of being challenged on it is something I would wish on no one.

I'm not equating being misidentified as gay with actual homophobic hatred aimed at homosexuals. But arguing about that just brings to mind the people who dismiss the movement for gay rights with, "Get over it, you're not treated as badly as the slaves were." Again, tell Billy Lucas's parents that it's just "a little annoying".

Obviously the people who are angry at Shervill for what he said and are decrying him as a "closet case" are not doing so in the same spirit as kids who call slightly mincing boys "fags". But while the precise spirit is different, there is still an undercurrent of judgment and derision. "Closet case" is hardly a term of endearment. No, you're not saying he's bad or more worthy of ridicule for being gay. But you ARE saying he's bad or more worthy of ridicule for hiding the "fact" that he's gay. And it strikes me as hypocritical to simultaneously see all of the anti gay-bullying fervor combined with what I see as a mirror image use of sexuality and personal identity to shame someone.

Which is all far more in depth than this all deserves, and more thought I cared to apply to the a*hole, but the questions were posed.

Abundant Visible Alex Mojo. I love when you fight for proper word usage. :snap:

I don't see it that way. They aren't being shamed BECAUSE they are gay, but because their actions are..... ironic. (Don'tcha think?) When George Rekers, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, etc. are rallying against homos with every fiber of their being while having their "luggage lifted" by teenage twinks on their off-time, they SHOULD be shamed for being closet cases.

It is what they DO that is hypocritical, lying, ironic, whatever. Not what they ARE.

Yes (not speaking for GD here, he may not agree), but the key difference is that we knew for sure they were engaging, gleefully apparently, in the behavior they publicly condemned.

Not quite the same as pre-emptively deciding that another person must also be doing that, based on no other evidence than stereotypes, and then using it as an additional cudgel against them.

Now we're going 'round in circles. We're talking about a man who has a serious obsession with another man. There are plenty of examples of people who rally against gay people -- loudly -- when they are gay themselves due to self loathing or religious BS (whether or not they are acting on their sexual desires).

Every gay person has had to deal with being closeted and/or being in denial about their sexuality. It is not difficult in many situations to pick up on those behaviors in other people.

And I still don't think that ALL stereotypes are bad. I have lots (and lots) of things about me that are stereotypically gay. So what?

Would I think that Shirvell is gay from his mannerisms if I ran into him on the street? I don't know. But knowing that he has a blog dedicated to the daily activities of a cute gay college student, plus the way he carries himself... you can't help but think, gee, this guy is in serious denial.

Could he just be a totally batsh!t crazy straight dude? Sure. But I think that's the less likely explanation. Nobody has to catch him downloading Sean Cody videos to think that the scale tips in the other direction.

And I think that's what it comes down to. Some people (cough*straights*cough) think it's hypocritical stereotyping, and other people (um, all the gays in the world) are pretty sure he's a closet case in the same way we can assume who's male and who's female on the street - - though of all people, we should know that some of those are not what gender they seem.


The assumption is still valid, and Shrivell is not worthy of a more thorough examination. He's gay as the day is long, we can tell. And to the extent we might be wrong, so fvcking what? It's not like I call him on his home number to fag taunt him. He will never have an inkling of my thoughts and feelings and ironic/hypocritical/clipper ship assumptions.

I still don't understand why anyone cares whether he's gay or not.

All I really care about is that he's now jobless, and that he eventually gets disbarred.

Shirvell has been fired.


It was a little Harry Potteresque that his hearing was moved from "later" to "now" without much notice, but I applaud the decision to get rid of him.

Excellent.

Great! On the other hand, he will now have more free time to stalk Mr Armstrong.

I just hope twinkies aren't a staple of his diet.

Ouch.
lol!

ETA: But apparently a Twinkie Diet is a good way to lose weight, according to CNN.

Seriously! The South Beach twinkie diet is the best. With all those dicks in your mouth, who has time to eat?

Har, har, har. :D

Well, dropping a few pounds would do him a bit of good, I suppose - but as as an assistant attorney general, he might be familiar with Dan White's infamous Twinkie Defense - so if Shrivell takes up a habit of eating the creamy spongecake snack icon, I'd say Armstrong should get himself a bodyguard.

May Shirvell shrivel up and go away.

For the lake of a better place...



I don't know about anyone else, but I'm warm!

I considered posting this in the WTF Thread.
Gay Coffins

" bidding for the pink pound " made me giggle. Never heard it put that way before.

Well that was seventeen kinds of beautiful.



:snap: :snap: :(

Gay heartthrob Ryan Kwanten of True Blood fame (make that heartthrob of gays and others) is interviewed in The Advocate on a bunch of gay-related topics. He has a gay brother, Lloyd, who's a doctor down under. Ryan himself nicely sidesteps the issue of whether he himself is gay.

Perhaps my favorite exchange:

:eek:




Oh, and re-quoting the Maniac, because everyone should watch the beautiful video he linked to a few posts up.

Holy crap they've gotten good at animating people.

5:22 wrecked me.

Actually, the whole thing wrecked me, but 5:22 had me sobbing.

Eh, it did nothing for me. Google pulled the same deal months ago. I would have expected a bit of animation to liven things up.



This from the man who's own It Gets Better video will likely never see the light of day. I would have had animation in mine, but I don't work with Pixar's budget.

Sheesh! There are a couple of people here that can draw, perhaps we can animate yours with Grumpy. (See how be brightens up once he has the attention of a fag-hag?) ;)

They probably didn't work with Pixar's budget either. I'd imagine this is was a project of one of their internal diversity groups, which generally get corporate support in the sense of some kind of refreshments budget for meetings, and a acceptance of them using employees company time to a certain degree.

A few events coming up. (Below is a reprint of an email I received from the LGLA) Steve you work around there so it may be interesting to go to, if you can get a morning off :)

LIVE ORAL ARGUMENT VIEWING AND MCLE PRESENTATION

MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2010
Ninth Circuit Oral Argument: 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Post-Argument Discussion: 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Irell & Manella LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90067-4276

Irell & Manella LLP is pleased to announce a special 2010 program around the Ninth Circuit oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, in our Century City offices on Monday, December 6, 2010:

* From 10:00 a.m. to about 12:30 p.m., the cable broadcast of the Ninth Circuit oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger can be viewed live; and


* From about 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., immediately following the oral argument, there will be a lunch featuring a discussion of the case among Tara Borelli (Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal), David Codell (outside legal counsel to Equality California), and I&M lawyers who have been involved with amicus briefing in support of same-sex marriage in other recent litigation.*



Outside attendees should come to the firm's 9th Floor reception desk to be directed to the program room. On-site parking with the I&M building valet (enter off the East side of Avenue of the Stars, just south of Santa Monica Blvd.) will also be validated at the firm's 9th Floor reception desk. Buffet-style lunch will be provided at no cost at about 12:00 noon. (Sorry, no special meal requests.)

There is no charge to attend, but space is limited. If you would like to attend, please RSVP to Carolyn Moore (Tel: 310-284-7429 / or email: cmoore@irell.com) as soon as possible but in any event before 3:00p.m. on Friday, December 3rd. When making a reservation, please: 1) state the attendee's name(s), spelling the first and last name if it's a voicemail; 2) provide a contact phone number or email in case we need more information and/or the event space is full. If you do not RSVP, or if all places are filled by the time you do, we may be unable to admit you on the day of the program.

If you would like to see the amicus briefs filed by both Lambda Legal and Equality California along with any of the other briefing, including the briefing submitted by the principal parties, please go to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000472.


NOTES:

* THE LUNCH DISCUSSION PORTION OF THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HOUR, OF WHICH 0 HOURS WILL APPLY TO LEGAL ETHICS; 0 HOURS WILL APPLY TO THE ELIMINATION OF BIAS; 0 HOURS WILL APPLY TO THE PREVENTION, DETECTION AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

IRELL AND MANELLA LLP CERTIFIES THAT THIS ACTIVITY CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS FOR APPROVED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNING MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION.



ccmailg.irell.com made the following annotations

You Are Invited To A Discussion About The Oral Arguments Before The 9th Circuit In The Perry Case With Special Guest USC Law Professor David B. Cruz



Next Monday, oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the challenge to the constitutionality of Prop 8, will be heard by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges on the panel will be Justice Stephen R. Reinhardt, Justice Michael Daly Hawkins, and Justice N. Randy Smith. Oral argument will be divided into two hour-long sessions. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant's standing. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.



What: Please join Love Honor Cherish and Co-Sponsors, the Latino Equality Alliance and LGLA at LHC's next meeting, which will feature USC Constitutional Law Professor David B. Cruz, who will offer his expert insights into the oral argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Come discuss what the argument may suggest about a likely ruling by the Ninth Circuit and the prospects for a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.



When: Tuesday, December 7th, at 7:30 pm,


Where: The National Council of Jewish Women, Room 103, 543 North Fairfax Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90036. Parking is first come, first serve in the NCJW parking lot (enter off of Clinton & press button on box), or park on Fairfax (meters until 8 pm).

Hehehehe - you said "Oral"

Hmmm, I'm gonna think about going to that. My bosses would FREAK though, if I took Monday morning off.


In other gay news, Brendan has edited the It Gets Better video he directed about 6 weeks ago - and though I am not a fan (the lead actor gives me the willies), it's been talked about a bit in this thread - so it's only fair to present it here - for better or worse.

Wow he IS creepy. ;) LOL j/k that rocks that you made one of these videos. I think it turned out great! I certainly don't have the balls to make one, so go you!

I like it!! I like that you present options to consider.

For me, the turning point was when I quit being afraid and started standing up and giving back as good as I got. Yeah, I got beat down a couple of times... but I'm still here.

:snap:

"Don't leave us now and leave us them."
I like that.
Nicely done, Stevie!
:)

Wonderful video Steve!

Well done, Steve.

Come see the future, you'll like it!

Love it!

iSm, that was frelling awesome! <big hug>

Watched a cute movie called "City Island" last night, and this Steven got such a gay crush on one of the characters ... Ironically played by an actor named Steven Strait.

Oh my.

¡Señor Strait es muy guapo y delicioso!

He was in 10,000BC also:

Post #875 is nummies. :D

I don't watch Glee, so I have no idea who these guys are. It's a cute video though.

I didn't like that rendition of Cold Outside. Kurt is too castrato and the new kid's part disappears in the mix, though he's got way more moxie as a singer.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna put 10K BC in my queue just for some more Strait action. Thanks, JayDub, for finding that much yummier pic of him from City Island. Le.Big.Sigh.

Loved it - Maddie did too!

Video of December 6th's Hearing before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal of the Prop 8 case, in two handy segments (the first on whether anyone even has standing to pursue an appeal, and the 2nd on the actual merits of the appeal).

The case will likely go to an "en banc" panel of the Ninth Circuit (meaning a much larger panel than the 3 judges here), and then onto the Supreme Court.

As I read the law (and it seems pretty obvious to me), no one has standing to appeal. But I believe this court will ignore that, and take up this hot button political issue so that it can eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.


I had wanted that to happen, but I'd rather the law be followed. And in truth, I'm afraid to let the current composition of the Supreme Court get their filthy tyrannical paws on this issue. If the appeal does not go forward because of the standing issue, California will have equal marriage rights. That's really a hollow victory without federal and IRS recognition - but I think that's the best outcome possible at this time.

DADT repeal's last chance - and it's shaping up to be a good chance.

not holding my breath :-|

Kind of looks like you are.

It's tough if you've been following it through the last couple of years. Such back and forth, hopes - then dashed. I don't even give much of a damn about this particular gay rights issue, but the rollercoaster has been nerve-wracking nonetheless. And I'm sure many, like me, are just "wake me when it's over" tired of getting our hopes up.

All that's left is the President's signature! And then all the stupidity of implementation.

The "certification" process will likely take another year.

But this is a happy day nonetheless. And once again, I place the credit for justice squarely with the courts of law. If a federal judge had not ruled DADT unconstitutional with an outright ban breathing down the stiff necks of congress, I don't think this vote for repeal authorization would ever have happened.

But whichever way it came about, and however pesky long it takes to implement, the good is done. And discharges formally stop immediately. It's possible that open enlistment may be instituted early in the year. So for all intents and purposes, really, DADT is history.



Sigh, now for ENDA, DOMA and Marriage Equality. The tougher stuff. The battle to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which had vast majority support in the nation, does not give me hope the fight for the more important items will be anything less than brutal.

:cheers: Here's hoping for a bit of domino effect.

still not holding my breath
it's not over till it's over

Wendy Walsh reads her son Seth’s suicide note. (NSFW due to language) He was 13 and openly gay. Seth killed himself September 19 because he could no longer take being bullied at school.

Why she made the video.

I want to click on these links, but, just reading your post has ripped me to shreds. September 19th is my birthday - 13 years old - Jesus Christ.

It's not an easy video to watch.

Every man is just a six pack away ...

Three of the guys are in their Mr. Rogers' Casual Collection best, and then there's the guy wearing a tuxedo? With high-water pants? And it looks like he's drinking his beer with a straw? Get her!

Probably elsewhere in this thread, but just saw this:

Attachment 1575

Yes...I "saw" that as well...

You stay here, I'll go get help.

Oops. Your attachment wasn't working right so I tried to fix it. Instead I broke it more.

And ruined my clever response.

Oh, wait. No you didn't.

I was trying to be fancy. Let me post it again without getting fancy.

The Bizarre World of the Bisexual! :) hehehe I love these educational videos.

Ok, I haven't seen most of them - but this music video gets my vote for best It Gets Better.

Wow, awesome. Not too many views yet, what say we give it a little help towards going viral?

Sit down.
Fasten your seat belt.
Prepare to have your mind BLOWN.

Below is the most shocking coming out ever in the history of the multiverse.

Amazing, huh? Also, apparently the Pope is Catholic! Who knew?

Warner Bros. sent them an awesome care package.

What a sweet story, thanks for sharing it.

I just got a little teary reading that ! :blush:

Born This Way
"A photo/essay project for gay viewers (male and female) to submit pictures from their childhood (roughly ages 4 to 14), with snapshots that capture them, innocently, showing the beginnings of their innate gay selves."

Zeb Atlas (yes, that one) sings Love Hangover 95% work safe

Not sure where to put this so I will put it here. This was a funny (to me) comment on Yahoo to that Alabama Governor making comments that only Christians are his brothers and sisters:

"Christianity. The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, while telepathically telling him you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul which is present in all humanity because a woman made out of one rib bone and a mound of dirt was tricked into eating fruit from a magical tree by a talking snake. Yeah, it makes perfect sense."

LOL! It's all plausible, right? Hail Xenu!

So putting that on FB!

Haha BTD started a facebook crazy! :D

What are you, nuts?? :p

Who, me?

If there were zombie Jesus in Sunday school I would have paid more attention.

From the episode of Glee with Gwenyth Paltrow:

It looks like our good buddy Andrew Shirvell had been previously warned about using state resources to harass The Gays prior to being fired.

What's with Dorritos and the ads they are proposing for the Superbowl?

Gay Sauna Reach for Dorritos

Gardener checks out the Neighbor's Poolboys' Dorritos


Am I missing something about the Superbowl's target audience??