An Example Of What We're Fighting

In the wake of last week's New Jersey court decision, a columnist named Kevin McCullough wrote a column on World Net Daily (a right-wing breeding ground) titled "Why Homosexuals Hate Marriage."

I mention this here to affirm how deeply rooted this bigotry is and the broad forum these people have to spew their hate. Here are some excerpts:

"Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed, these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal utopia."

Of course, the judges wouldn't be "tyrants in black robes" if they had made the "acceptable" decison. How pathetic is that arguement? And what will the right wing say when they lose votes?

Want some more?

"But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?

The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God's plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by "thumpers" in "Jesusland" infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.

Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."

Sadly, this right-wing nut got a book published and is on the radio in the New York and Philadelphia areas. People full of this much hate, who have things so "simply" defined in their black-and-white world, who can so easily dismiss an entire group of people and lump them all in one, will not go away easily. Losing a court decision will only strengthen their resolve and have them coming back with more bigotry, more hatred, and more pronouncement's of God's judgement. They won't go away easily.

The God this hate monger speaks of is not the God I know, the God who sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins. Thank God.

Will New Jersey Gay Marriage Ruling Energize Republicans?

This column on Time.com opines that it just might:

"What Republicans are hoping is that they can use the issue of gay marriage and the ruling to motivate conservatives in key states like Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia, where Republicans are in danger of losing Senate seats. Polls this year have shown small, but measurable drop-offs in enthusiasm from Christian conservatives and there's some worry about whether they will stay home on Election Day, particularly after the Foley scandal, which some conservative leaders blamed on congressional Republicans for being too afraid to take action against Foley earlier because it might be perceived as anti-gay.

Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in nine states, including Virginia and Tennessee, and conservative activists will point to the New Jersey decision as a reason people in those states should go to the polls, even if they're dissatisfied with how the Republican majority has run the country. If that message resonates, the same people celebrating the New Jersey decision could be having mixed feelings about it come election day."

This column in the New Republic disagrees: (via the site Faith in Public Life):

But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.

For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics.....

And, because the court punts the definitional question to the legislature, Republicans will have difficulty deploying their favorite mythical creature--the crazed, power-thirsty liberal judge, brazenly sweeping aside the democratic will of a helpless public to pursue her own narrow vision of the good life......

The activist-judge trope will fail not just because the legislature is being kept in the picture, but because public consensus in the state is starting to favor gay marriage. A June poll by Rutger's Eagleton Institute for Politics found that "New Jerseyans, by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent ... support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally." And, when you drop the word marriage, as the court did, the support is even more robust: 65 percent of state residents support giving same-sex couples "many of the same rights and benefits as a married man and woman." Only 30 percent are opposed.

Support for the decision aside, there's also a serious question about how receptive the Republican base will be to the typical "homosexual agenda" scare tactics. This year's ballot initiatives raise that question better than anything else. When the Times did a roundup of the 2006 initiatives, it found, amazingly, that "supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents." Whereas many of the 2004 ballot initiatives passed with popular support topping 70 percent, polling in Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin--four of the states with ballot initiatives up this November--show only narrow majorities in favor of them. In South Dakota, the ballot initiative might actually fail. The case might cause some polarization, but if the Times report is true, it should motivate both sides equally. This is not the stuff of 2004.

This is a desperate time for Republicans, and they will reach for anything that can stop their slide toward defeat. But there is little that indicates gay marriage is the right piece of underbrush to cling to: This case is not going to fire up that base. Call it homosexuality fatigue. Call it whatever you want. (Or leave it up to the legislature!) Just don't expect Republican demagogues to be able to change it.


The evangelical vote will probably be the largest undefinable wild card in the 2006 election, and the rights of same-sex couples to marry in several states is one of the main things hanging in the balance.

"It's Not Heaven, It's Not Hell, It's Purgatory"

That was the gist of the message from an e-mail distributed by Steven Goldstein, Chairman of the GLBT advocacy group Garden State Equality in regards to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage.

Here is the text of the message:

Dear LGBTI New Jerseyans and our millions of straight allies across New Jersey:
I'd like to take a moment, if you'll allow, to have a frank discussion about one of the more unique phenomena that emerged from yesterday's decision on marriage equality. We can't recall seeing so many divergent reactions from our community and supporters to any single event. Many of the reactions were diametrically opposed: Some activists and organizations portrayed the decision as "a big win" or "total victory." Other activists and organizations portrayed the decision as all but a loss -- a bad day when we had expected a total win. Still others, most people actually, had a reaction in between.
We're all over the map as a community. It's understandable -- well, at least the opinions in the middle are understandable -- given the complex nature of the ruling. On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of equal protection. On the other hand, we did not get marriage equality, though it's now up to us to make it happen in the legislature within 180 days.
It's not heaven, it's not hell, it's purgatory.
But here's the problem with telling anyone, whether your family, friends or even journalists, that the decision is a victory: It will hurt our efforts to win marriage equality in the next 180 days. It will, I swear to you, it will. But more on that in a moment.
Describing the decision as a victory at this premature juncture is wrong. If we don't win the label "marriage," we will NOT have equal protection under the law. You know this too well from following our e-mails on the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. Without the label marriage, couples like Lt. Hester and her partner, and scores of others across New Jersey, have been told time and again, "we don't care with the law says, you're not married."
As we've said a million times and we'll say a million times more, marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. We're not fighting for the label marriage for some moral, ethereal right. We're fighting for the label marriage because it's the only way a gay civil rights law will work in the real world.
And that's what you have to tell everyone you know. Were you to tell folks "it's a win" -- and to be sure, 90 percent of our community and our supporters believe otherwise -- it would tie the hands of those of us at Garden State Equality working every day in Trenton to get a real win: Marriage equality.
Because then legislators would tell us, "You know, we're hearing people call the Supreme Court decision a win. Why are you pressing so hard for marriage then?"
I'll go beyond that point, and this I plead to you with all my heart. A nuanced statement, along the lines of "it's a win, it's not everything we wanted, but it's a win," will still hurt our efforts for marriage equality.
First, such statements would be a lifeline to legislators whom we have got to win over. People hear what they want to hear, particularly legislators looking for an excuse not to do the right thing. They'll grasp onto the clause in a nuanced sentence that gives them an out.
Second, the art of political communications tells us that both the general public and the power-elites, from the press to public officials to others who hold our fate in their hands, don't process nuanced statements well.
If you tell someone, "the decision is a win, but blah, blah, blah," you can bet the "blah, blah, blah" caveat won't be processed and/or reported. People will only hear the headline, i.e. "It's a win." And that would devastate our efforts.
It would lead to reactions like this: "Well, I just read that someone in your community called this a win, I don't understand why you're now saying it's not. Sounds like this civil unions idea is a sensible solution."
Friends, we have 180 days to win 100% marriage equality in the state legislature, as the Supreme Court ruled. I personally plead with you, with every bone and fiber in my body -- and I'm joined by thousands of others at Garden State Equality -- that even if part of you thinks it this was a win in the context of history, it's not what your message should be at this most sensitive, pressure-filled time.
The bottom line is this: Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. Anything short of marriage equality deprives LGBTI families of the equal protection they so desperately need. Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide that protection, as we've learned through the New Jersey experience. Thus we do not have a win yet.
But we're going to work our hearts out to make that happen within 180 days. We're counting on you to be by our side.
Thanks for listening, as it were. All of us at Garden State Equality appreciate you from the heart.
Warmly, Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality


From the other side, Matt Daniels, the president of "Alliance for (Straight) Marriage," continues to run his mouth in the mainstream media. This quote from the New York Times, which he was kind enough to distritute by e-mail:

New Jersey's highest court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but ordered the Legislature to decide whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name. But conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage blasted the ruling as an example of the justices essentially trading judicial robes for legislative pens. ''The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature, and saying, 'Listen, there are two bullets, you get to pick the bullet: either gay marriage or civil unions,' '' said Matt Daniels president of Alliance for Marriage, an organization based in the Washington area that supports a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ''And that is not democracy. That is court-imposed policy-making that takes this out of the hands of the people.''

That's right, the courts took marriage away from being strictly in the hands of straight couples and allow same-sex couples, in some form, to share in it.

AFA Gets After Wal-Mart

The American Family Association, often a well-deserved object of scorn here, recently sent out an e-mail blast titled "Wall-Mart Rolls Out Red Carpet For Homosexual Marriage."

Among what the AFA considers the company's heinous sins are:

o Joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and being appointed to its board.

o Having the nerve to sell books that are supportive of same-sex marriage

Then this which really cracked me up:

"A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale: Gay - 1148 Lesbian - 468Transgender - 40 Bisexual - 38 Gay Marriage - 26 "

Personally, I think someone there has waaaaay too much time on their hands.

From my perspective, and I suspect that of most people who aren't aggressive homophobes like the AFA, Wal-Mart hardly comes across as a social activist. I have no doubt these measures were taken to promote business, and I applaud the company for that. It can only be a good thing, in my opinion, for large companies to be sensitive to the needs of GLBT consumers--a win-win for everyone involved.

Of course, the AFA just wants gay people to crawl back in the closet and it grinds their cookies when companies like Ford and Wal-Mart not only acknowledge the existence of the GLBT community but active engages it.

Good.

New Jersey Rules on Same-Sex Marriage

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today in favor of same-sex marriage--sort of. A decision seemingly designed to avoid making anyone unhappy left both sides unhappy, which is usually how that goes.

As CNN reported: In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

In a release titled "Radical Activists Prevail in New Jersey Marriage Decision," the right-wing Alliance for (Straight) Marriage was not happy:

"This marks the second state -- after Vermont -- where radical activist groups have convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “The legislature will now be compelled to choose between two bullets -- all under court order. Either they create so-called ‘gay marriage’ or they create a civil union scheme that is identical. Either way, the people of New Jersey lose the right to decide -- freely and democratically -- to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children.”

"Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws," Daniels added.

Daniels also added, "Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."

Let me insert a point here: Why shouldn't marriage be redefined? Doesn't the fact that the divorce rate hovers around 50% indicate that the institution, as now designed and practiced, falls WAY short of prefection?

Here's a positive message to kids about marriage: fall in love with whoever your heart leads you to, commit yourselves to that person, and stick with it. Just because it's always been done boy-girl and that's how it was in the bible doesn't mean boy-boy or girl-girl can't work and, more importantly, that God wouldn't bless it. Just because narrow minds don't understand something doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that should be part of the U. S. Constitution.

Not all GLBT activists were completely happy with the New Jersey decision, however. This from Equality Maryland:

“If the true intent is to give all benefits to same-sex couples, then what is the point of calling it civil unions if not to caste a separate and negative class for LGBT couples,” said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. “This day will be remembered in history as one where a court of law granted some protections to same-sex headed families, but denied these families true equality and dignity under the law."

I tend to think that Dan is taking too much bloom off the rose today, but I also can't dispute his points. If I had invested as much of myself as he and other GLBT activists have to fight for the right to marry, I probably would not be satisfied with this incremental step either.

I still believe, however, that this was an important step forward for GLBT rights. People like Matt Daniels and his organization will insure that many, many more steps need to be taken before GLBT people will gain equality in marriage, but at least today there is one less obstacle to overcome.

U. S. Catholic Bishops to Define Their Stance on Gays

According to this report in the Boston Globe, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will be voting on a proposal at their next gathering that would condemn "scorn and hatred" of homosexuals. The bishops are also expected to declare that gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt children.

In other words, Catholics won't outright condemn homosexuals, but they won't recognize some of the basic rights and needs of human life for gays and lesbians either.

The report says they will reaffirm that "homosexual acts are `always sinful' and `morally wrong."

No big surprise there.

Sam Sinnett , the president of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, said the document "will be discussed entirely by celibate males, and their viewpoint is more concerned with keeping their jobs than being pastoral leaders."

As usual, it comes down to politics.

Churches Thrust Into Marriage Debate in Virginia

This report in the Roanoke Times shows how much of the political battle over the issue of same-sex marriage in Virginia is being fought from pulpits of churches and amongst congregations.

VAMarriage.org, a coalition that supports the measure, has asked pastors to give Nov. 5 sermons for "Marriage Protection Sunday." The group has handed out "pastor packets" and other tools to galvanize voters. This is apparently legal since the churches are not endorsing a specific political candidate.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"Marriage is something that cannot be tarnished," said the Family Foundation's Victoria Cobb at a recent pastors luncheon in Roanoke. "We believe the churches are key. The pastors must lead and remind people that this is a biblical issue."

"People of faith are not all on one side of the issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, campaign manager for the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the measure.

"People of Faith for Equality in Virginia was formed more than a year ago to help voters understand that there are people of faith who are 'no' voters and that is OK. The other side doesn't have any campaign except to scare, shame and goad some people of faith into voting yes."


It personally makes me ill that churches are a political battleground. That is clearly not what Jesus had in mind and it angers me that some Christians can try to get me to believe that it is.

Are Right-Wing Attacks Actually Opening Closet Doors?

That is the conclusion of this article, which analyzes two U. S. government surveys.

The number of same-sex couples that identified themselves as such has increased 30% in just five years, a period which saw the general population grow 6%. Interestingly, some of the larger jumps were in the Midwest, especially Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

The survey also suggests that the push to outlaw same-sex marriage is encouraging GLBT couples to emerge from the closet to stand up and be counted. Six of the eight states with an anti-gay marriage initiative on this year's ballot -- Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- saw rate jumps higher than the 30 percent national average.

A New York Times poll cited in this article showed that the understanding of what homosexuality is truly about is increasing. The poll showed that 53% of respondents thought that people do NOT chose to be gay, up from 43% in 1993. Also, the percentage of those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong has plummeted to 37%, down from 55% in 1993.

My conclusion from this data is that, eventually, ignorance allways loses.

Should Gay Rand epublicans Be Outed?

In the wake of the Foley scandal, that has become one of the hot button questions in politics and the GLBT community these days.

Blogger Ann Althouse offers her opinion:

"Honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs."

These is also a spirited conversation on this topic in the comment section (270 comments at this posting).

Andrew Sullivan shares a similar opinion on the topic.

"Look: I loathe the closet. I despise the hypocrisy in the Republican party. But a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong."

Michael Reagan goes on the counter attack:

"Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a "Gay activist blogger" devoted to "outing" alleged closet-gay Republicans."

"He's outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don't agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don't agree with the liberal gay agenda. "

Here's my take:

As a rule, I'm not in favor of outing myself. I've learned how traumatic an experience it can be and don't think anyone else should make that decision for someone unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.

I do belive, however, that a closeted gay person actively working to restrict the rights of other GLBT people makes them fair game to being outed. It's one thing for a person to have their own issues with self-loathing and inability to accept themselves, it's quite another for them to direct that energy into harming others by working to shape public policy.

Since integrity and motivation are often questioned by people on different sides of an issue, in my view the notion of if any Republicans or their staffers in Congress (the party that has tried to make discrimination against GLBT people part of the U. S. Constitution) are closeted gay people belongs on the table.

If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on an issue that is colored in shades of grey.

James Dobson and his "Sheeple"

This column in the Denver Post starts out:

"There's a reason followers of the reactionary James Dobson are called "sheeple."
As chairman of the $145 million-a-year propaganda organization Focus on the Family, Dobson is the ultimate puppet master, giving conservative members of Congress marching orders in exchange for votes from his flock. "

This column goes on to show how Dobson's organization, now a Political Action Committee posing as a religious ministry, influences the votes of millions of people.

The columnist, Cindy Rodriguez, concludes:

"So wouldn't a person of strong moral values at least chide (Hastert for his inaction?

Nope. Not when you are a puppet master of members of Congress who use the name of God to pass laws that take away civil rights in exchange for campaign contributions and the promise of votes from the flock. A man of real moral values would urge Congress to increase college Pell grants, expand work training programs, and offer struggling working- class families subsidized day care.

Instead, he vilifies gay people as people who are destroying marriage. Dobson talks about having a pro-life agenda, but never speaks out against the deaths of more than 2,700 American troops in Iraq, or against capital punishment, which is really a euphemism for state-sponsored murder.
The sad part is the sheeple don't see the hypocrisy and don't realize they're being used."

Jesus didn't teach anything about selective morality. Dr. Dobson came up with that on his own.

Condi Rice Swears In (gasp!) a Gay Guy!

Boy, does the religious right have their collective undies twisted in a knot after this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator, a position that ranks him as an ambassador. Dybul is openly gay and the bible at his swearing in ceremony was held by his partner Jason Claire. During the ceremony, Secretary Rice referred to Claire's mother as Dybul's "mother-in-law." Yep, you could practically hear right-winger's underwear getting twisted up as those words came out of Rice's mouth.

Of course, religious right leaders responded, well, about like you would expect them to.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.

"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."

Actually, I find his comments "profoundly offensive."

Info On GLBT History Month

The Equality Forum has put up an excellent web site in conjunction with GLBT History Month.

Found at http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/, the site features the biography of an individual important to GLBT history every day for the month of October. The people covered range from Oscar Wilde to Sheryl Swoopes, Elton John to Barney Frank, etc.

I encourage you to check it out.

Research Shows Kids of Gay Parents Do Just Fine

To anyone with an open mind or who knows of any children raised by same-sex parents, this is a true DUH headline, but the fact that is was published in the mainstream press will hopefully make some people reconsider their position on adoption by gay parents.

The story in the Madison, Wisconsin State Journal, a state with gay marriage prohibition on the ballot this November, quotes NYU sociology professor Judith Stacey, who claims that anti-gay marriage groups have been dishonest in the way they used data from a study she conducted five years.

I'll give you a moment to get over the shock of that statement.

Moving forward, Stacey has updated her study with new research over the last five years.


"I have been surprised that the differences so far seem to be smaller than I would have guessed," Stacey said.

Stacey, who has always supported gay marriage, is co-authoring an update to the first article that looks at some 80 studies of gay and lesbian parents, single mothers and fathers and their children from several countries.

In the first article, Stacey's study examined potential limitations in the studies' samples of human subjects and methods. Today, there are still holes in what we know, she said, noting that many studies of same-sex parents have focused on well-to-do whites and have neglected minorities and the poor.

But she said a new wave of research is "much solider now," addressing more of those issues as well as children such as Hill, who were born into families of same-sex parents rather than to opposite-sex parents who later split up and took same-sex partners.

"The kids are fine. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay and lesbian parents have noticeably different outcomes on mental health," Stacey said of the findings. "They turn out at least as well.

These children may turn out somewhat better, she added. "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children," Stacey said, noting that same-sex couples have to deliberately set out to conceive or adopt children. "When you're looking at heterosexual parenting, you have a lot of accidental" pregnancies.

There is a lot of interesting detail in the State Journal article, along with the obligatory dissenting opinion by a tool of Focus on the Family, that is worth reading.

Will There Be Success at the Polls for Same-Sex Marriage?

It could happen according to this USA Today article.

"It could be a watershed year," said Carrie Evans, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.

Heading into next month's elections, opponents have gone 19 for 19 in winning state ballot initiatives that banned same-sex marriage, winning an average 70% of the votes.

That could change this year, however. Colorado could be the first state to vote in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships, and polls in Arizona and South Dakota are both running against banning same-sex marriage.

If these numbers hold up, that will fly in the face of the religious right's two favorite arguements in opposition; the voice of the majority and the overreach of activist judges.

I wonder what they'll come up in those states? I instinctively cringe at the thought.

"Ex-Gay" Lies and God's Love

About a month ago, I linked to a piece in The Advocate by a young man named Kyle Rice, who wrote about why he hated being gay.

Today, I'm linking to a response in the same place by Timothy Kinkaid, who writes for the outstanding site "Ex-Gay Watch." Tim was, like Kyle, raised as a conservative Christian and wrote this piece because Kyle's "reminded me of where I came from."

As I would have expected, Tim's piece is well written with compassion and empathy, encouraging Kyle not to head down the "ex-gay" path. Here's an excerpt:

"But the most damaging and difficult lie of all is that you cannot be gay and Christian.
I don't say that because I think Christians should never try to change their orientation. I say that because the vast majority of people who do try will never experience such a change.
And when they finally give up their long, futile struggle, they often believe that this means they must also abandon their faith. I pray that when you discover you have not become straight you will not then believe that you must give up your relationship with God."

I continue my prayers for Kyle and also give thanks for gay men like Tim who have walked through the fire of condemnation and doubt and emerged stronger for it.

Gay Animals Are Part of Nature

I don't really go looking for this stuff, but when I find it I post it because it does support the message I try to get across here.

As reported in The Advocate, a museum exhibition in Oslo, Norway, funded in part by the nation's government, provides extensive evidence of wide-spread homosexuality in the animal domain.

In a statement by the exhibitors, they said "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear—homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it is not against nature."

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibit, titled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species and is well-documented for 500 of them."

There are more details in the article (some a tad lurid), including the obligatory "burn in hell" statement from a Christian group in Norway, and some theories about why homosexuality survives among animals.

There's that darned science again, screwing everybody up with their facts and research.

Back in a few days

I'm off for a desperately needed respite from lengthy crunch at work. I'll have some new material on Monday.

On National Coming Out Day, More People Are

In a recent survey, 83% of people who identified themselves as gay or lesbian said they are out. Also, 70% of straight adults said they know a GLBT person.

The Advocate report contains this quote:

“If seven out of 10 heterosexuals know someone who is GLBT, then many gays and lesbians are making their identity apparent as a natural part of their lives—just like their age, height, hair color, or personality,” said Mark Shields, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s National Coming Out Project. “For most people, coming out or opening up to someone starts with a conversation. And for those interested in fostering strong, deep relationships with their friends and family, living openly often allows for closer relationships with the people they care about most.”

Just another reminder that society is not weakened when gays and lesbians come out. Society is strengthened when people accept who they are and live they lives accordingly in an open manner.

One More Day

It’s been two years since I lost my wife Bette on October 11, 2004. I still have the image burned in my mind of her lifeless body laying in our bed when I found her at home that day.

In some ways, it seems like just yesterday since we were sitting in the coffee shop at our favorite bookstore sharing articles we were reading from our different magazinzes or watching a Baltimore Ravens game together or just lying and holding each other in our bed. I can still feel her touch and see the look in her eyes, the one that told me she loved me with every fiber of her being and always would.

In other ways, though, it seems like a lifetime ago that we shared our lives with each other. A LOT has happened in my life over the last two years, and as this anniversary approached I wondered—what would I do if I had one more day with her and I could share what these last two years have been like without her. What if I could tell her what I’ve learned about myself, about our relationship, and the direction my life has gone without her.

I’d steer her away from the bookstore because there’s a lot that’s happened in the world that would really upset her. She felt at strongly as I did that our nation was heading in the wrong direction and that the Bush administration and the religious right was causing a deeper division among people, practicing exclusion instead of inclusion. We talked a lot about that during the 2004 political conventions and I was thankful she did not have to endure the reelection of President Bush.

I would bring Bette to my home where I could spend one-on-one time with her and really show her what my life is like now.

I would tell her how a day has not gone by without me missing her.

I would tell Bette how deeply I still love her and feel her love inside my heart and soul. As many of you know, I am happily remarried to Pastor Brenda and my love for her grows every time I see her, talk to her, or touch her. I don’t understand the dynamic of still loving Bette while giving myself completely to Brenda and I doubt I will ever be able to explain it, but I know it to be true.

I would show her some of my writing as evidence that I continue to pursue the dream we shared and spent so much time talking about. She would be pleased with my sportswriting and the progress I am making on my novel, and probably taken aback with my GLBT and political advocacy blogs. Since she spent a good chunk of her time before I met her advocating for disadvantaged people in Illinois and shared my perspectives regarding GLBT issues and politics, I think she would be proud that I have put myself out there to stand up for what I believe.

Bette would see a man much more at peace that he was two years ago. I had allowed myself to be beaten down by the world and had grown somewhat cynical and angry. I had lowered the bar for what I expected our of life beyond the quality time we had together. Most of that was because both of us, but especially me, had drifted away from fellowship with Jesus. I was trying to live a godly life without God’s help; a recipe for sure failure. I often felt I wasn’t as strong as I should have been in our marriage and in many ways not as good a man as she deserved. I’ve worked through a lot of that now, and I suspect she would pick up that vibe immediately—Bette always knew me better in many ways than I knew myself.

I would thank her for being the first person in my life to show me unconditional love and tell her how my life truly started the day I met her. Any happiness or success I have had since then or will have in the future has its genesis in that love and the way she showed her unwavering belief in me.

I would thank Bette for all the fun we had, often playing like little children. She was my baby girl and I was her baby boy, and we could be the happiest little orphans around. I would tell her how much I regret the time we could have had together but didn’t because I was too obsessed with work, sports, or just wanted to be by myself. The best times I had in our 12 years together were with her, not without her, and I wish I had made that a higher priority.

Bette often saw me struggle with balance in my life, and I’m doing a lot better with that these days. That is largely due to the influence of the Holy Spirit since I have embraced it as an active part of my day-to-day life. Part of that, however, is due to learning that I could withstand the worst possible thing that could happen in my life, losing her. Once that happened and I found out that I could still function, a lot of things bothered me a lot less than they used too. Surviving her passing left me with a giant dose of perspective I didn’t previously have.

I would tell her how glad I am that she experiences no more physical pain and has a peace that must surpass my understanding. She deserves to be at peace, and knowing she was made it possible for me to gradually accept her early departure from this world.

I would then introduce Bette to Brenda. I would tell Bette how much I love Brenda, and in many ways I can give and also receive Brenda’s love because of what I learned from Bette. At that point, I suspect Bette would look at Brenda and see something familiar. Bette had a way of looking at me, what she called “the Jimmy look,” that was full of passion and a totally committed, eternal love. She would probably notice Brenda gazing at me in that same way, and that look would say more than any words ever could. I expect that they would embrace and Bette would say that, as much as she wants to be with me, she will be at peace knowing I am being loved and taken care of.

As our time drew to a close, I would walk Bette to the door and pray with her, thanking God for bringing her into my life and giving her eternal life. I would then hold her like I used to, not wanting her to go but knowing she must. I would let her go, we would pledge eternal love to each other, and then her earthly body would fade away as she returns to heaven.

I would return to Brenda, hold her like I never want her to go, pledge my eternal love to her, then bury my head in her shoulders and cry like a baby; exhilarated from seeing Bette and showing her this wonderful life I have now and devastated by losing her again.

It would be then be time to look forward again, building upon the blessings that God has given me, none greater than my wonderful wife and partner Brenda who accepts and appreciates the role Bette played in my life and the love I will always have for her.

If you haven’t told the person you love how special they are to you and what makes that so, please get up from your computer right now and tell them or call them if they’re not with you.

Fortunately, I left very little unsaid with Bette. One of my best friends told me Bette’s sudden passing taught him to take more time to appreciate his wife and tell her he loves her. I know I do that with Brenda, and I hope you do also.

Don’t wait until your life is impacted by tragedy to jumpstart your life like I did. Do it now while your loved one is still here to share it. I won’t have this second chance I just wrote about, and neither will you.

"Sin is Neither Republican or Democratic"

That would probably come as a shock to many of the Republican operatives we know as the religious right. Here is a piece by author Diana Butler Bass that makes this point and more. Here's an excerpt:

"Making sexuality a political issue, as much of the Religious Right has done, distracts from a host of other issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental concerns. But it also obscures the fact that Christians agree (as my friend and I do) on many things regarding this intimate part of our lives. We agree that sexuality is a gift from God, that love and commitment are foundational to sexual expression, that marriage is the best vessel for human sexuality, and that authenticity, honesty, fidelity, and mutual regard form the basis of Christian sexual relationships. Sex is, theologically, an ultimate expression of self-giving and surrender, qualities that resemble those in Christian spirituality. As the medieval mystics taught, humanity sexuality is a metaphor for our relationship with God."

"God is, as scripture tells us, the author of all goodness. God never rejoices in sin, and we know that sin is not the exclusive possession of any political party. The darkness that stalks us is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is part of the human condition, that which makes us all cry out for compassion—and that compassion is an apt starting point for a Christian politics of grace, not partisan vindictiveness."

Doesn't that put things in their proper, balanced perspective?