First Draft

'Someday I Wanna Throw a Wedding for That Kid'

A.

Odds & Sods: Sweater Vest Sweep Edition

Sweater Vest Sweep: Former Senator Man Dog Sex kicked some ass Tuesday. He didn't win a lot of delegates because of the goofy way the GOP allots them but Mitt has got Santorum sized shoe prints on his forehead.

I don't think it's that ex-Senator Sweater Vest is suddenly popular, it's that nobody likes Mitt and the more they see the less they like him. Hell, he lost 2 states that he won in 2008 and Colorado has a substantial LDS population. Plus, he had Tpaw's support and finished third in Minnesota, which is not something that should happen to an "inevitable nominee" at this stage of the campaign. Time for Mitt to open his wallet again and rain money on some state so he can win one.

Finally, whassup with sweater vests? I've never worn one and never wanted to. A sweater vest coulda made Steve McQueen look dorky and Rick Santorum is no Steve McQueen. Hell, he's barely even J Danforth Quayle...

Fuck yeah, 9th Circuit: They threw out California's loathsome Prop-8 on narrow grounds BUT with language that could lead to gay marriage bans being, uh, banned. The opinion was aimed smack dab at Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote the last big gay rights case to come before the Supremes: Lawrence v. Texas. He's been trending to the right the last few years but this case could have him list leftward if, that is, the Supremes grant cert. For a more informed view, read Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

Occupy PAN: Finally, a bit of NOLA Carnival chatter. The satirical bad asses of Carnival, Krewe du Vieux, rolled last weekend. But my sub-krewe, PAN, did not parade for reasons too lengthy and absurd to go into in any detail. It boiled down to most of us wishing to elect new leadership and the current leader's refusal to call a vote, which led to our suspension. Dissident PAN members decided to set up camp on the parade route and wear costumes from past parades. Our theme was Occupy PAN. Some pictures can be seen at my facebook page but here's one of our postery, buttony things:

Not One Single Step Back

It's easy for me to say look how far we've come, after all. I'm married to who I want to be married to and there's really no danger of some "family" values pecksniff coming along and dissolving that marriage because it upsets his worldview to think of my life. But look how far we've come. 

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion.

"The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."

Just look at that. 

Clown Hall, of course, is losing its fucking mind about this: 

Opponents, including senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, Brian Raum, want to see the issue brought to a larger 9^thCircuit panel and to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage — tried in San Francisco — turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court."

NEVAR FORGET THAT IN SAN FRANCISCO GUYS ARE ALL PENISING EACH OTHER.

Also Hollywood. Forget all those chicks Warren Beatty banged. They were all beards. Everyone who has ever been in a movie is gay. Especially Clint Eastwood. 

I just keep wishing we could fast-forward through the next ten years or so, because I can see it so clearly, where we're going. I can see it in the GOP crackup going on tonight in the primaries, I can see it in the sad and angry bear-baiting going on on the conservative blogs. I can see it happening, see us moving forward, and I wish we could just skip the parts where everyone denies what's going to happen, and get to the end where love wins. 

Because it will. It always has. Because we make it happen. 

Every chance we get, we move things forward. Every chance. And yes, every time we take a step forward somebody shoves us a step back, but they're not the point. Our job isn't to make them stop shoving. Our job is to keep moving forward. To keep changing and growing and pushing each other, to keep widening our definition of what it means to love each other and take care of each other. To keep making it a bigger and bigger job, and then to do that job the best we can. 

And we keep doing it. We keep pushing forward. A step and then another step and then another, and in the end we look back five years, ten years, twenty, and see not how many times we've been shoved back but how many times we got back up and kept moving. 

A. 

Fuck Yeah, Washington State!

That gay apocalypse will be along any day now, right? 

A. 

Washington State Ruined My Marriage

And how hard is this to explain to people, really: 

Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday said she'll put forward legislation to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

The proposal will be introduced during the legislative session that starts Monday. If it's approved, Washington would become the seventh state to legalize gay marriage.

"Today, I'm announcing my support for a law that gives same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington - the same right given our heterosexual couples," Gregoire said before a crowd of gay marriage supporters at her office. "It is time, it is the right thing to do, and I will introduce the bill to make it happen."

The governor spoke for 20 minutes, laying out what she sees as the moral and legal reasons for the move, as well as the evolution of her personal views over the years.

"I have been on my own journey. I will admit that. It has been a battle for me with my religion," she said. "I have always been uncomfortable with the position that I have taken publicly. And then I came to realize the religions can decide what they want to do, but it is not ok for the state to discriminate."

I was talking to commenter chuckchuck about this today, the constant scare tactic by the right that at some point the gay-friendly state will force Good Christian Bigots to marry gay couples and ordain gay people and generally get all gay up in their religion. But this is exactly the argument that needs to be made in response.

In other words, Christians can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own churches. Just so long as they don't shove it in our states all the time. 

A. 

Quote of the day

It comes from movie legend and self described Eisenhower Republican Clint Eastwood on gay marriage:

“These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?” Eastwood opined. “I don’t give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of.”

"They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

Fuck Yeah, America!

Native American tribe okays same-sex marriages ... unanimously.

A.

'A Terrible Muddle'

Only if you, you know, let it, Newt.

God Almighty. I was in the woods, getting bit on by woodland pests and drinking too much brandy, when the news came across the Twittertubes that New York had doubled down on ruining America. Which was awesome, because a) already drunk so b) could sort of yell incoherently with joy while conservative relations assumed noise was motivated by cocktails consumed in blinding hot sun on board boat as opposed to rampant East Coast elitistism.

But now that the dust has settled and America's headline writers are just about out of glitter jokes, conservatives are once again making dire predictions about What This Means for Our Future, and I gotta tell you, it's almost like all the energy's gone out of them. Pat Buchanan has a radical misreading of the story of Sodom but it just comes across as nutty instead of genuinely enraged, and the most inflammatory commentary we can even come up with to mock comes from the Cornhole, which is just depressing.

I keep thinking, myself, about 2004 and about all the dire predictions that hitching one's wagon to the Great Gay Marriage Train would doom any Democratic candidate who chose to speak up on the subject. Which of course was just as much bullshit as saying that hopping onto the anti-war movement would doom any Democratic candidate, or allying with the unions, or standing up for the working poor, or any other actual Democratic position.

(Funny how it's always something to be so scared of, doing what's right. Funny how that's always the case. I wonder why that is.)

And what I think people forget is what winning actually looks like, winning at what you're supposed to be doing, not winning elections. It looks like some small measure of justice, and it sounds like the roar of the ocean coming in to the shore, and it hits like a wrecking ball, crashes into everything we know, and changes its shape.

It looks like this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

Is that what we're so afraid of? I read Newt's thing linked up there, and all I heard was we don't wanna, with regard to the rightness and wrongness of what the future will look like. All I heard was old, and scared, and done, and over. Newt may be right that some parts of America will be terribly muddled by this. I have no doubt that some people are terribly confused today, and tired of having to think about people who are different from them, and unsure about what's so great about their own marriages now that two dudes can get hitched, but the fucking club of the most of us aren't muddled at all. 

A.

Insert Portuguese for 'Fuck Yeah' Here

Go on, Brazil!

A.

Baby Let's Get Married

Illinois: Not all the way there yet, but moving in the right direction.

A.

I Guess This Means I Have to Gay-Marry Claire

Fuck yeah, Illinois.

A.

Illinois to Legalize Man on Dog

Trying to catch up to the rest of the 21st century:

The Illinois General Assembly is expected to vote today on same-sex civil unions legislation in what gay rights advocates expect to be a very close vote. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan has said he expects state lawmakers to approve the bill and the governor has voiced his support.

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716), which is co-sponsored by openly gay Illinois State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), has come under fire from conservative groups, including the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Washington D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which have lobbied hard against the bill.

Meanwhile, in the 16th:

Cardinal Francis George, the head of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said, "The enactment of marriage-like benefits in civil union legislation will intensify the legal attack on marriage."

The crucial piece of legislation does not recognize same-sex marriages, but will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance. The bill would not force religious denominations to recognize or sanctify relationships they oppose.

This is a longtime kink of the Catholic Conference, that at some point they'll have to choose between going to jail for violating anti-discrimination laws, or marrying gay people. It's the vision they use to frighten their flocks and spur donations to their causes, and it's never going to happen, like most ultraconservative nightmare scenarios.

A.

The Queer Problem

 Seriously, THIS, and not just because she's the boss lady:

You had it, and we worked hard to give it to you, and we see you calling things impossible which are just very hard, and we get fucking annoyed, because we don't get to get away with that shit. Not at our jobs and not in our lives.

We've all of us been running some variant of that loop the last few weeks, and we all will probably continue to, and we should.

But the loop in my head goes off into my own personal cul-de-sac, and I get that it's at the very least not just a bit selfish, not to mention somewhat counter-productive, even downright presumptuous, but here in my private angry cul-de-sac, it's just me and the President.  More specifically, me and the President and his Queer Problem.

Because whether anyone else thinks it's right or not, whether it's rational or not, in my heart, I hold Barack Obama personally responsible for letting us down. Letting us down about same sex marriage, about DADT, about ENDA.  I hold Barack Obama personally responsible for choosing cynicism and expediency over principle on these issues that for me and mine, are profoundly central to lives, not to mention our experience as engaged citizens. 

Because yes, we needed strategy and a coalition and policy prowess, but even more we needed a champion, we needed the personal political authority and leverage that only a POTUS can bring. And our POTUS has a Queer Problem. I'm not saying he is homophobic, nor do I actually think that, but I am saying he simply doesn't seem to believe gay rights are human rights.

I think part of this is owning up to just how invested I was with my queer expectations, about my hopes for this charismatic, principled candidate to address some redress, to be a champion. I mean, what's more "hopey-changey" than righting wrongs, ensuring basic human rights?

The sand started trickling out on those expectations pretty early on. As the midterms came on, I knew I would vote no matter what.  It's a personal choice and my ingrained choice is always going to be to vote, but this year I couldn't condemn the many pissed off GLBTQs who abstained.  I still completely disagree with the political efficacy of their choice, but goddamn I do feel the rage, and goddamn I did struggle against that anger even as I pulled into the parking lot at my polling place yesterday.

Because Barack Obama has a Queer Problem.

He doesn't seem to think the despair and despondency of our GLBTQ youth is an emergency. Oh sure, he made an It Gets Better video. AFTER everyone else and their dog did. 

Sure he's spoken out in favor of repeal of DADT but seems incapable of understanding the whole "fierce urgency of now" with respect to the hundreds of ruined military careers of gays and lesbians who continue to volunteer to put their lives on the line.

He has spoken in favor of a trans-inclusive ENDA, he's appointed a lesbian to the EEOC but tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock, queers can still get fired for being queer in 28 states, and in 38 states, it's still legal to fire someone on the basis of gender identity. In 2010. It's still legal to discriminate in the country you lead in 2010, Mr. President.

Last week, the POTUS hinted to some DFH bloggers that he actually thinks about same-sex marriage, that his "attitude" has evolved. This from the man who thought it was okay to make the distinction that "God is in the mix" only when heteros stand up in front of their friends and family and commit themselves to each other. Some people considered it an optimistic signa but the first thing I did was look at the calendar and count back from Nov. 3.  But hey don't worry, Mr. Obama, you've got time. After all, Dick Cheney will likely die pretty soon so people will probably stop pointing out how he's more progressive than you about the queers getting hitched.

On a related note, it's flat out presumptuous of me to assume to know what someone born in an interracial family believes or thinks about marriage.  I do get that, but I still wonder why, if Mildred Loving herself can say

"I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people civil rights"

that Mr. Obama does not make a similar personal connection and having made that connection, publicly bring his personal understanding to bear on the issue of marriage freedom, similar to the way he often spoke so eloquently about how his mother's experience as a cancer patient influenced his advocacy for healthcare reform. My guess, again cynical, is that even if he does have personal insight about the freedom to marry based on his family's experience, to speak about it publicly might pose the additional political risk of emphasizing his "foreign-ness." 

Barack Obama has a Queer Problem. Sure, he's said a lot of positive supportive stuff and made some key appointments and the HRC thinks he's superswell, but when it comes down to it, time and again, over and over, the POTUS has simply failed to prioritize gay rights as human rights, failed to afford them that urgency, or any urgency at all. 

As a result, as these midterms will certainly underscore, from here on out the queers officially have an Obama Problem.

It is Just a Matter of Time

AMERICA. FUCK YEAH.

The line to marry is out the door.

9:30 AM: Ehhalt interviews Roger and Ron, the first folks in line to get married, should the stay be lifted. "If it doesn't happen, it's just a matter of time, it it does, well, we're here" they said.

It is just a matter of time. For people seeking justice, it is just a matter of time. The bigots get tired. The bigots go home. The bigots get old and they die off. The bigots are turned away from the courthouse steps with a great big mighty fuck you and I know that's easy for me to say, being a middle-class white chick married to a guy, but tell me it's untrue. Tell me our entire lives haven't been, from one end to the other to the ending of the world, the story of an inexorable march forward. Slow, fast, sometimes in leaps and bounds and sometimes in horrible, agonizing crawling over gravel on our knees, but forward nonetheless.

Why do you think they fight back so hard, the bigots and the loonies and the ten-a-penny fascisti? Because from where their God sits, from a way-up-high place of disapproval and fear, they're losing. From where their cruel and capricious God sits, they're being beaten back. Year after year after year, though they might howl and screech, they're losing. More people now approve of marriage equality than don't. More people now don't give a fuck one way or the other, probably, to put it more precisely. More people would rather Fred Phelps and his spiritual allies not scream in their faces. More people don't see the goddamn point anymore, of hating anybody that much based on who that anybody loves.

It is just a matter of time. And when and if justice comes, no matter how long it lasts, people like these will be there, long after those fighting against them have gone.

A.

"A breakdown at the intersection of ideology and reality"

Take a look at the following excerpt from a recent editorial on the conservative reaction to the outcome of the Prop 8 trial. It rather neatly removes each of the already-shaky legs holding up the conservative Right's attempts to paint Judge Vaughn Walker as nothing more than an ungodly sodomite and biased activist tyrant intent on destroying Constitution and pissing all over California voters:

Conservatives cannot deny that our Founders intended the judiciary as an equal and independent branch of government purposed to ensure the protection of every citizen’s rights.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right. 

When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them. This is why Judge Walker’s opinion reads, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." 

Not to mention that conservatives have a flawed history with civil rights, a trend that began when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional. While Goldwater was no racist there is clearly a conservative precedent for a breakdown at the intersection of ideology and reality.

Nicely put, isn't it? Particularly that last paragraph. So who wrote it? 

Great-granddaughter of the 31st US President, writer, conservative commentator, and blonde Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover.

Prop 8 Struck Down

Breaking now on CNN.

... Twitter is BROKEN. I assume in celebration.

A.  

'Us'

If only those gays would just stop shoving things down our throats we could go back to the good old days when nobody respectable even thought about such things.

A.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, Attorney General Martha Coakley Win Today's Internet

Come on down and collect your prize:

BOSTON — A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Coakley may have been a shit candidate for Senate, but damn if she didn't do a job here.

A.

Okay, Hawaii's Right Out as a Vacation Spot

WTF, people?

Gov. Linda Lingle announced today that she will veto the civil unions bill, describing the measure as "marriage by another name."

Lingle said the legislative maneuvering by the House, which brought the bill to a vote on the last day of session, was wrong and that the issue is of such societal importance that it should involve all the people of Hawaii.

She said she made the decision about a week ago. "I feel very comfortable with my decision," she said. "I think I gave (the issue) the dignity that it deserved."

"I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same sex marriage by another name," the governor said.

If only. And hey, there's nothing more dignified than taking the maximum amount of time to screw people over before you do it. She really thought about it! That makes it okay! I mean, if you'd been an open homophobe from day one, that would have been really wrong, but now that you've carefully considered your decision to be an asshole, we're all just gonna have to applaud it.

A.

Fuck Yeah, Iceland!

Taking the first step toward man-on-dog! 

A.

Portugal, Fuck Yeah!

Lest we think the world is full of racists and morons exclusively, some good news. This calls for a cat eating ice cream. With metal.

A.

Since Arizona's Right Out as a Vacation Destination

How about Portugal?

A.

What they're afraid of

In keeping with A's post earlier.

via Joe.My.God

Iron Jawed Angels

Brave women:

Onziema and her partner met playing rugby at a local Kampala club a couple of years ago. Onziema knew "within five seconds" that she had met the one, she says. It took her partner a bit longer. Onziema has known her whole life that she's gay, but her partner is not out publicly, and the process of coming to terms with who she is took a little longer.

After they'd been friends for a few months, Onziema made her move. "There was a kiss," she grins. "She wasn't expecting it."

Since then, the couple have been through a lot together. One year in a kuchu relationship — the Luganda word for gay is one that people in the community use to describe themselves — is like 10 years in a heterosexual relationship, kuchus say. That would make Onziema and her partner's three years more like 30.

Onziema's partner doesn't mind that her girlfriend works trying to protect gay rights and change public opinion in Uganda. But she worries about the dangers Onziema might face, especially with the bill working its way through Parliament.

A.

Your Old Road is Rapidly Aging

So get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand:

In comments to the ombudsman’s call-in line (202.334.7582), one reader said, “the picture of two guys kissing makes me cringe.” Another called it “ridiculous,” adding: “Put it on page 10 or page four, put it in the paper, but I do not like it right there where I can’t avoid looking at it.”

Many threatened to cancel their Post subscriptions, and more than two dozen did. Post circulation vice president Gregg Fernandes said that late last week 27 subscribers canceled, specifically citing the photo. In contrast, The Post reported only two cancellations immediately after last July’s ethics uproar over its ill-advised plan to sell sponsorships to off-the-record “salon” dinners at the publisher’s residence.

Did the Post go too far? Of course not.

Damn right. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em with very gay penises, right in their faces where they don't want things shoved. And double-fuck all of 'em who wrote in saying things like, "I have kids, you know."

One called me to complain about “promoting a faggot lifestyle.” Another complained about the photo in an e-mail to the two Post reporters who wrote Thursday’s story about the licenses: “That kind of stuff makes normal people want to throw up. People have kids who are being exposed to this crap. I will be glad when your rag goes out of business. Real men marry women.”

Emphasis mine. I swear, there are a lot of things that drive me wild about the politics of modern parenting but one major thing is this: Your kids are not your excuse to be a total blowhole assface of a human being.

Your kids are not to blame for your politics. Your kids are not to blame for your decisions. Your kids are not to blame for any way in which you choose to live your life. Your kids are your kids, and they're people, and I know this is me saying this, childless whore, etc. And I'm not saying having children can't inform your worldview. I'm saying own your worldview as YOURS, instead of hiding behind your children's blankies and pretending you can't help yourself.

Jesus H. Gentle Cycle Christ, I hate this. Like, how are we to suppose this works, that you used to be a fair and decent person but then you had a kid and decided, "You know, white sheets look fucking good on me now!" You had a kid and then went, "Hmm, suddenly ladies kissing each other is just not on!" Bullshit. You always felt this way, and now you can justify it with somebody who is more into playing with blocks or reading comic books than realizing his parents are total assholes. 

Problem is, he won't always be too into his own stuff to notice yours. So won't it be fun for junior to read someday that you used to be a good person and now you suck, and he was the line between before and after? And not only do you suck, but you're such a stupendous pussy that you can't even give yourself credit for the decision to suck, you've got to shove it off on him? Isn't that charming? Do these people listen to themselves?

You wanna be a bigot? You wanna hate gay people? You wanna wax redneck in the pages of the Post about faggot lifestyles and shoving things down people's throats? YOU DO THAT THEN. You just go do it. You go and do that all on your own, slick. You go and do that because YOU want to do it, you stupid motherfucker. You go and do that because you've taken a good long hard look in the mirror and decided that writing pissy letters to the paper about how you don't like reality anymore is the best way to spend your time. You do that because being a bigot is what you want to be.

Leave your children out of it. 

Via Balloon Juice.

A.

Today's Horoscope: AWESOME

TPM.

A.

Possibly the Best Sentence on the Internet

His genitals restored to their normal state, Barack Obama moved onto the next sexual frontier: consensual light bondage with hyper-obese furries who enjoy Victoria-era cosplay and tickle-pleasuring.

A.

Prop 8 Trial

Liveblogging going on over at The Seminal.

A.

'The Free Uniting of Two People'

Feliz Fucking Navidad:

Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children.

The bill passed the capital's local assembly 39-20 to the cheers of supporters who yelled: "Yes, we could! Yes, we could!"

Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Democratic Revolution Party is widely expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city's civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be "the free uniting of two people."

The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city.

"We are so happy," said Temistocles Villanueva, a 23-year-old film student who celebrated by passionately kissing his boyfriend outside the city's assembly.

 

xkcd

A.

Hells Yeah, Austria!

Awesome.

A.

More of the gay: Thank you for being a friend

It's a long way to full LGBT equality, and we will continue to fight. Sometimes, last week in NY, we're gonna lose. Other times, like yesterday in New Jersey, we'll at least hold our ground till the next fight.

We know this:

Allies. We need 'em. They are essential.

Bruce Springsteen, today

Like many of you who live in New Jersey, I've been following the progress of the marriage-equality legislation currently being considered in Trenton. I've long believed in and have always spoken out for the rights of same sex couples and fully agree with Governor Corzine when he writes that, "The marriage-equality issue should be recognized for what it truly is -- a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law." I couldn't agree more with that statement and urge those who support equal treatment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let their voices be heard now.

The citizens and high school students of Cherry Hill New Jersey, yesterday

NY Senator Diane Savino, last week

Thanks to these folks for their grace under fire, and thanks to all y'all too.

Beyond mere homophobia: a sad day for Rhode Island

Yesterday, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri, vetoed 25 bills passed by the State Assembly. One of those bills would have changed existing state law to add "domestic partners" to those authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other.

That's right. The Governor says if you are gay, and your partner dies, you can't claim their body and you can't arrange for their funeral or cremation. Not just because you're gay but because ... wait for it:  it would threaten traditional marriage.

In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.

Now, maybe I'm having trouble remembering my American history but I could swear that the concept of separation of church and state had more than just a little bit to do with the founding of Rhode Island.

So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of setting up the form of church government, electing church officers, punishing with church censures, but to see that the church does her duty herein. And on the other side, the churches as churches, have no power (though as members of the commonweal they may have power) of erecting or altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicate) as by deposing magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against them

I wouldn't go so far as to say Roger Williams is rolling in his grave, but this other kind of "incremental erosion of principles," the ones the state upon which the state was founded, makes this already sad story even worse.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Carcieri is a member of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), whose mission is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." In addition, last month, Carcieri delivered a speech against marriage equality to the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), an organization so rabid in its homophobic zeal, it almost makes NOM seem normal in comparison:

"MFI does not consider homosexual behavior to be merely an alternate lifestyle or sexual 'preference'; it is an unhealthy practice and destructive to individuals, families and society. Our compassion for those plagued by same-sex attraction compels us to support the healing of those who wish to change their behavior. MFI strongly opposes any efforts by political activists to normalize homosexual behavior and all attempts to equate homosexuality with benign characteristics such as skin color, or the 'gay rights' movement with the civil rights movement."

In his statement yesterday, Carcieri gave two other reasons for the veto:

As written, he said the bill would allow the decisions of a "partner'' of a year to take precedence over "traditional family members,'' and he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.''

Carcieri said he was also uncertain "how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for year'' since there is "no official or recognized form'' of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island. He called this proviso "vague and ill-defined.''

One bright spot: The existing law protects the wishes of those who have created pre-planned, formalized funeral contracts.  Carcieri's veto can't change that.

Quiet hate hurts

A few months ago, I found myself in one of those Disneyland-style lines at the airport as we attempted to pass through security. Just behind me in the line was a beefy, muscular guy, about six feet tall, who had a shaved head and a ton of tattoos. At a certain point in the weaving line, I managed to get a good look at him. His arms were adorned with swastikas and pit bulls. Down the back of each of his triceps was a single word: “WHITE” on the left and “POWER” on the right. When he got to the front of the line, I slowed up a bit to see what would happen as he approached the black guy who was checking IDs. He glared at the TSA agent with palpable contempt, but moved forward once he was checked out.

There was no incident, but the message was clear: I hate you.

I thought about that guy when I watched the election results in Maine roll in. I was saddened for my friends in the gay community who want nothing more than the right to be as miserable as those of us in the straight community. Marriage is one of those things that some people love, others hate and even more avoid. I know many people who have lifelong commitments that dwarf mine but are unrecognized by the law and that saddens me. Listening to a turdburgler like Frank Schubert who seems to think that this miscarriage of justice is in some way preserving the institution of marriage reinforces my sense that stupid people shouldn’t breed.

However, it took the Maine election to help me realize that the issue of gay marriage doesn’t come down to guys like Schubert or Chuck Schott or the other overt haters. While these folks are the lightning rods, the stereotypes and the reasons activists get up in the morning to defend their causes, they’re not the problem.

In an election that drew upwards of 500,000 people according to fivethirtyeight.com, we saw a 52-48 split. If that’s the case, we’re looking at about 260,000 people who said, “Yeah, we’re grateful for your contributions to the fashion industry and all, but marriage? Let’s not go there…” Of these quarter-million-plus voters, they’re obviously not all loud idiots carrying signs or people who use “faggot” as a portion of their daily vernacular.

Instead, they’re the “regular people” we spend time with every day. They’re the grandparents who are watching their grandkids ride on the fake pony outside of K-mart. They’re the smiling folks who work the counter at Starbucks and chat with everyone about the weather. They’re the people who strike up a conversation with strangers on the bus about how the local high school football team is going to do this year. They’re the decent, hard-working folks who pay taxes, donate coats to Goodwill this time of year, help out at the church festival and do all sorts of other things that are aimed at the betterment of a society.

And yet, when they enter the shrouded secrecy of a voting booth, they can’t bring themselves to say that equal rights aren’t special rights. They get some strange vision that if we legalize gay marriage, a giant spree of gaydom will unfurl across our country and that the red, white and blue will become the pink, cream and robin’s egg. They hear the echo of the talk radio idiots in their head about “what those people do in their bedrooms” at night, as if the people in committed relationships aren’t doing it now to begin with. (And as a general aside, I’ve seen some heterosexual couples that would make me more than shudder if I had to imagine what they looked like doing the deed in their bedroom. The fact that your nudity and sex acts may repulse someone else should not be viewed as a legitimate reason to deny marriage.)

When it comes right down to it, we’d be better off if the haters were honest. As Americans, we’ve always been better fighting wars in which the enemy was clear and easily targeted. We know we can’t persuade the people who are willing to mar their bodies, parade with signs or scream their slogans in the name of a hateful cause. However, we can find ways to fight back against that.

It’s the silent fears and quiet hatred that will always cause trouble in a fight like this.

A day late

A lot of people weren't surprised by it, but still, the loss last night in Maine was a severe blow for marriage equality and LGBT civil rights. So where do we stand today?  What do we do next time? It's hard to even hazard a guess, given the level of frustration on a day like today.  If nothing else, I hope we leave behind these state by state bloodlettings and put the focus on strategy at the national level. Because losing 30 times in a row sucks.

Maine

Please please please please please:

PORTLAND, Maine – Bolstered by out-of-state money and volunteers, both sides jockeyed Monday to boost turnout for a Maine referendum that could give gay-rights activists in the U.S. their first victory at the ballot box on the deeply divisive issue of same-sex marriage.

The state's voters will decide Tuesday whether to repeal a law that would allow gay marriage. The law was passed by the Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci last May but has never taken effect.

The contest is considered too close to call, and both campaigns worked vigorously — with rallies, phone calls, e-mails and ads — to be sure their supporters cast votes in the off-year election.

If voters uphold the law, it will be the first time the electorate in any state has endorsed marital rights for same-sex couples, energizing activists nationwide and deflating a long-standing conservative argument that gay marriage lacks popular support.

A.

Hell Yeah! ... and also ... What The?

New York, New York:

Gov. David Paterson reiterated his pledge to bring marriage equality to New York state Thursday, telling a cheering audience at a major gay rights fund-raiser that they can expect to see a bill pass “just in the next few weeks.”

And then he went on to say:

“So, if you’ve been telling your loved one, ‘You know, I’d marry you, but we have this legal problem,’ and maybe, as a lot of straight people have done, you’ve led someone along thinking you’re going to marry them, one obstacle or another has prevented it, you’d better leave now, because marriage equality is coming to New York state,” said Paterson.

THOSE OF YOU IN SHITTY RELATIONSHIPS RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

MARRIAGE IS COMING!

A.

The Last Time You Trusted a Politician

John Cole:

Nothing constructive is ever built with negativity. Period. So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don’t you do something constructive? Why don’t you embrace his message? How about an ad campaign that has Obama speaking from the HRC declaring support for your goals, and asking Congress whether they want to join you and the President in achieving those goals? How about going to Harry Reid, who is in a tight election as it is, and asking him whether or not he will join with the President and the gay community to end DADT and DOMA? How about stating that you stand in unison with the President, that you intend to work with him to achieve those goals.

I understand that may not be as cathartic as knee-capping your own guy while chanting “just words,” but it might be more productive. And it isn’t settling. It isn’t telling you to shut up or relax or be patient. It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team, even though throwing eggs and making farty sounds with your armpit is more fun.

Part of working to change the status quo, though, is throwing eggs. I don't understand the polar attitude that you can either criticize or be productive. It does not have to be "Obama sucks! We iz BETRAYED by Librul Jeezus! FINISH HIM!" or "Obama is great! He's doing very well! Just give him time! And shut the fuck up!" It is entirely possible to hold in one's mind the idea that Obama is the best president we've had in a long time, and that he's not doing enough on X, Y or Z to move things along.

A.

Fujita/Zirin Redux

Dave Zirin has posted more of his conversation with Saints Linebacker, Scott Fujita about the latter's support of the upcoming National Equality March For Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered rights in Washington City as the founders called it. Here's the money quote wherein Scott turns the term homophobia on its head:

"You know people do call it homophobia, and even that term alone is interesting to me. Because I don’t even know how they call it homophobia, because that’s a fear of the same. It’s more heterophobia. It’s a fear of something different from yourself."

Scott Fujita: UC Berkeley graduate and a football player who plays with his helmet on. 

Proud To Be A Saints Fan

And not just because they're 3-0 and kicking ass. Saints Linebacker Scott Fujita did an interview with Dave Zirin of The Nation and spoke out in support of marriage equality and of the Baltimore Ravens Brendan Ayanbadejo who wrote a blog post on the issue:

Scott Fujita, defensive captain of the New Orleans Saints, supports Ayanbadejo's stance. "I hope he's right in his prediction, and I hope even more that it doesn't take that long. People could look at this issue without blinders on...the blinders imposed by their church, their parents, their friends or, in our case, their coaches and locker rooms. Fujita continued, "I wish they would realize that it's not a religion issue. It's not a government issue. It's not even a gay/straight issue or a question of your manhood. It's a human issue. And until more people see that, we're stuck arguing with people who don't have an argument." Fujita has also endorsed the October 11 National Equality March in Washington.

More Malakatude From The King Of Nothing

Congressman Steve King's mouth is the gift that keeps on giving. He's once again in a tizzy about gay marriage and socialism:

If there's a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources.

Wow, "those people" are diabolical. So, the road to socialism involves wedding planners, caterers and bridezillas? Who knew? I guess Sullivan forgot to post the master plan...

UPDATE: Congressman Malaka must have had an extra bowl of crazy for breakfast. He's now denouncing President Obama for being the evil mastermind behind ACORN or some such shit. Get thee to TPM for more madness and malakatude.

Vermont!

Woot:

Dressed in suits, saying their vows under a large wall-mounted moose head, the two Whitehall, N.Y., men promised their love, exchanged rings and held hands during a modest 17-minute ceremony. Moose Meadow Lodge co-owner Greg Trulson, who's also a Justice of the Peace, presided.

"It feels wonderful," said Slimback, 38, an out-of-work Teamster who is taking Sullivan's last name as his own. "It's a day I've been long waiting for, and a day I truly honestly thought would never come."

A.

Taking Up Oxygen the Rest of Us Could Be Using

Sinfonian explores Alaska morons NOT named Sarah Palin:

Note that Mayor Sullivan didn't say that a majority of people in Anchorage opposed the ordinance -- rather, only the majority of those who contacted the mayor's office opposed it (allegedly). I thought that it was the majority of the legislative body (in this case, the city Assembly) mattered more than who made the most phone calls or wrote the most angry, hate-filled letters and emails, but maybe I'm wrong. After all, Dan probably can see Russia from his office, so it's really not part of America anyway, right?

Also, the basic ignorance of reality in this instance by others who agree with the mayor is shocking even to someone like me, who should be used to the typical Republican aversion to facts by now:

Assembly Chairwoman Debbie Ossiander, a surprise vote against the measure last week, said she hasn't changed her mind.

Ossiander said she doesn't believe it's right to discriminate against gay people. But she said last week she feared that some language in the compromise might force businesses to create special facilities -- unisex bathrooms, for example.

Oh, no, we can't have unisex bathrooms! That's worse than socialism!

I'm so glad Blast Off! is back from hiatus.

A.

Now It's ON, Bitches

Oh yeah:

BOSTON – Massachusetts is suing the federal government over a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

State Attorney General Martha Coakley filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Boston. It says the federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit.

A.

Happy Dodd Photo

I knew I loved this man.

My young daughters are growing up in a different reality than I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.

But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.

And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.

Young Dodd. Tastycakes.

Seriously, though, he says something here I think will resonate with a lot of people his age and even my age:

I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

Because I wasn't so much raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman — we weren't so much homophobic in my family as we were untalkative — as that I simply never had to confront the question. As a middle-class straight chick with middle-class straight friends (at least, friends who presented to me and the rest of the Catholic-school-going world as straight) it simply never came up. I feel bad about that now, wondering whose issues I simply ignored because I didn't know any better, but I don't think that's unusual, about anything, really. Not a lot of people consider the lives of others unlike them unless forced to, unless the reality of injustice to someone else is put in their path and they can't avoid it anymore.

The question then becomes, of course: Knowing, what did you do? Did you shut your eyes and talk about The Lord not liking all the boykissing, or did you look at what was in front of you and take it upon yourself to figure out what was your upbringing and what was your basic humanity? Where did the things you believed smash up against each other, and where did you have to choose: Fairness for all before the law, or the comfort of disdaining the stranger? Having to choose, what choice did you make? Having made a choice, did you speak up about it or did you keep quiet?

And while it will seem crazy to Dodd's daughters that we questioned this at all, this is how we change, one decision at a time, one choice at a time, one statement at a time.

A.

Our business within this common mortal life

In case anyone has ever wondered, I DO realize I'm an inconsistent, intellectually sloppy, lazy asshole a great deal of the time, online and off. I've seldom been accused of being a fierce activist, a rigorous thinker, or good soldier.

This isn't self-deprecation, just acknowledgment that I am those things many probably would describe me as. And yes, of course, I am more. It's almost 1 p.m. right now, I'm likely to be at least three people before I leave the office for home this afternoon. Like all of us, most of us anyway, I'm many selves and some of them on occasion are wonderfully brave, selfless, focused, and righteously eloquent. Mostly though, it's hit or miss.

The above musing has been brought to light by some restlessness I've felt lately, observing, as I am wont to do, the political spectacle surrounding us. Observing: most days it's that, a game watched from the distance. During the last season, the long election second half, we were players, or maybe at least waterboys. Closer to the field at least,  more invested, enfranchised, stakes were real.

Now back to observing mostly. Of course, that's a false construct (I hope) but it's helpful. Otherwise, what are we? Referees? The ball itself?

It's the "otherwise" that's making me fidgety lately. I'm a realist, I have a pragmatic, albeit fairly rudimentary, understanding of how our government organization works, how political capital is gained and spent, how consensus is built toward lawmaking, and sometimes even justice. I get that the players, and here I mean the elected, have to stay in the game to score.

So anyway, when I say that I admire our new president, it's the truth. I'm being honest when I say I was inspired by his campaign and by much of what he's done in office so far. It's also true that I've been heartbroken by more than a few of his compromises, none more so than those dealing with torture. So far I cannot discern a genuine moral or ethical motivation for his choices in this regard. I wish he was 10 times braver, I find some of his "changes," if not counterfeit, already devalued, and I wish he was more a leader and less a politician.

Likewise: when I see the progress of my own chosen tribe toward marriage equality and bringing down DADT, I'm genuinely excited. I know these are moves toward justice, and I think they are worthwhile struggles. At the very same time, I feel squeezed in by the accompanying trappings of conformity and assimilation. If I have one true self somewhere in that crowd of changing identities, I recognize that self is inherently an outsider, and I trust the strength and perspective one gains from being counter to, outside of, the mainstream.

That self wonders what marriage equality and serving in the military means when at this exact moment somewhere, there's a queer or transgendered kid who had to sleep in a bus station last night, no family, no home, no decent job, no supporting circle of loved ones.

Would the fights we are spending so much money and energy on have made a difference to the 10 year old that hung himself because the kids at school called him a faggot every day? And speaking of fighting, many of the elders whose collective shoulders we were lifted on are languishing in single rooms where the only visible culture is one of aging and death. Did they get what they fought for? Are we carrying on with them in mind?

I don't have an answer for any of this. Except that politics as a pastime seems very often incompatible with the complexities of engaging with the world.

Also that I probably watch too much television.

I Think That Day Has Just Begun

New Hampshire.



A.

Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom.

The book of love has music in it 

In fact that's where music comes from 

Some of it is just transcendental 

Some of it is just really dumb 

but I love it when you sing to me 

and you you can sing me anything 

The book of love is long and boring 

and written very long ago 

It's full of flowers and heart-shaped boxes 

and things we're all too young to know 

but I love it when you give me things 

and you ought to give me wedding rings

                                -Stephin Merritt

Disappointed?  Of course.  But not surprised.

I timed my lunch break so I could hear the court decision on Prop 8 today. Honestly, my first reaction was relief that the 18,000 couples already married would retain their rights.  That did surprise me, because I thought if the court was going to uphold it, they would "disappear" those marriages to avoid the resulting legal conundrum. 

But that didn't happen and I was relieved and that was my first reaction.  And yeah, I know that's not particularly politically astute of me, only seeing part of the picture. 

Even via Twitter, good neighbor LesbianDad (as usual) summed the bigger picture up perfectly: 

It was because of her family, my sweet friends Jeff and William, IRL married friends and those spread all over the blogosphere, that I felt that first, imperfect, selfish, visceral relief.  That those (relatively) few families made it into the lifeboats, that they wouldn't go to bed tonight with their legal rights in question. 

Then I got mad about the rest of it.  Especially as the afternoon wore on, as protestors got arrested, and our president remained conspicuously silent. Especially when this happened:

Q    Robert, do you have any reaction to the California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8?

MR. GIBBS:  I have not talked to the President about it.  I think the issues involved are ones that you know where the President stands.

Really Robert? Sure, Candidate Obama was damned outspoken but I am not as certain where President Obama stands. All I heard today was crickets. I don't care that he was busy with his SCOTUS pick and Harry Reid's fundraiser either, because there were a lot other fierce advocates who took the time and trouble to offer support today. Also because he is the President and it's his job to be busy.

At day's end, though, what I am left with is not just hope, but determination. Also, the certainty, the absolute surety of knowing, that even though this battle isn't over, hate and bigotry and fear and backward-thinking have already lost the war. It is inevitable. I know this today more than ever.

Someone who's been at this much, much longer than all the rest of us thinks so too. Veteran LGBT activist Phyllis Lyon, age 84:

I'm optimistic about the future. Look at all the states that have now done this. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. They may not all last. But it's going to be all right. It may not be while I'm alive, but eventually it will work out that if two people want to get married, they can get married and it won't matter to whom. We went through this before with people of color. It will be OK.

How low can you go?

Marriage in Limbo

   

Comedy writer Ali Davis can be found on Twitter, where she is hilarious pretty much daily. Also here and here, similarly hilarious.

Make The Money, See

So much for Michael Steele's argument that gay marriage is bad for small businesses. Florists and wedding planners seem to be doing just fine:

Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and a study released to coincide with the anniversary says that the state has reaped an additional $111M in revenue from gay weddings.

The average couple spends $7400 on their nuptials there and one in ten spends more than $20,000. "A second study by the same group found that young, highly educated people in same-sex relationships were 2.5 times more likely to move to Massachusetts after 2004 than before gay marriage became legal."

(Also, five years since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage? WHERE IS MY BIG GAY APOCALYPSE ALREADY? A girl can only wait so long.)

A.

Straight Black Marriage Will Make You White and Gay

Or something.

It is no secret that resistance to homosexuality is highest among the black population (though probably other ethnic minorities are close contenders). I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals. Is the availability of homosexual marriage a valid reason to shun the institution? No, but that doesn’t make the reaction any less likely.

What are the chances that gay marriage would further doom marriage among blacks? I don’t know. Again, if someone can persuade me that the chances are zero, then I would be much more sanguine. But anything more than zero, I am reluctant to risk.

My favorite comment:

I've figured it out.

These people have 12 sided dice. They roll three of them to come up with these ridiculous stories.

"Okay, I got minority issues, personal responsibility, and gays! How do I tie this all together?"

It's like a new failboat party game.

A.