The Only Appropriate Response

Via AmericaBlog, this:

Here's the commentary from the YouTube poster:

So there was this crazy preacher lady yelling in the UU for 3 hours today, talking about how we're all damned to hell and how we're sinners but she's a saint because she's spreading the word of God (you know, the usual). She was just beginning a rant on traditional marriage and why gay people are evil when this happened. Highlight of my week.

I can't really add anything to that.

Friday Grab Bag

Rhode Island has become the tenth state to recognize same-sex marriage. The Quote du Jour on this one comes from Brian Brown, as might be expected:

But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, denies there is a national tide in support of marriage rights for gay couples.

"I don't know that I would say Rhode Island is a trend," Brown said, also questioning victories for supporters of gay-marriage initiatives in Maine, Maryland and Washington State last November. "Again, we're talking about states that are not necessarily indicative of the rest of the country. These are pretty deep-blue, liberal states we're talking about."

I think anyone who considers Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa to be "deep blue" is really looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses.

Via Box Turtle Bulletin.

Runner-up in that department is Asante Samuels, cornerback for the Atlanta Falcons, who doesn't understand why gays need to "flaunt" their sexuality like that.

Straight people are not announcing they're straight, so why does everybody have to announce their sexuality or whatever? You know, what they prefer...So that's just how I see it. That's my opinion on things. All respect you know, I have nothing but respect for the people whoever decisions they make and whatever, but you know, you don't have to show it and flaunt it like that.

Speaking of persecuted minorities (did you know that Christians are persecuted in the U.S.?), Ken Hutcherson weighs in:

Have you ever noticed that those who support the gay agenda don't like Christians in sports, entertainment, or media? They really don't like us anywhere at all. Let's take Tim Tebow as a classic example. Tebow was asked to keep his beliefs quietly to himself, while Collins is celebrated for the 'heroism' displayed for exposing his off-court activities.

See, if you try to ram your Christianity down everyone else's throat (and have you noticed that's a favorite image on the anti-gay right? One wonders.) and they object, you're being persecuted. Seems to me that Jesus had something to say about that -- like praying behind closed doors, wasn't it?

Scary fact of the day: 29% of Americans think that armed revolution may be necessary to "protect liberties." As might be expected, that includes 44% of Republicans.

Via David Badash at The New Civil Rights Movement. Read Badash's whole post -- he has some other scary figures for you.

And the Crowd Goes Wild!

The winner of Australia's Big Brother proposes to his boyfriend:

That's Entertainment

Something I don't usually do, but I think these videos point to trends that we have to recognize:

First, the Big Gay Kiss from Glee:



This one's flipped from the original, but rather than making you sit through the whole episode. . . .

And some audience reaction:



And this, from Thailand, is a total knockout. This one's been subtitled; the version I saw first wasn't, but was still totally wonderful. And watch the audience reaction (not to mention the judges).

Friday Gay Blogging

Yes, I know it's Tuesday, but I don't want to write about the Gulf oil spill or Helen Thomas (that last is significant because, with her retirement, there are no journalists left in the Washington Press corps), and I haven't done this in a while.  So here are a few tidbits:

From Daily Kos, a post on a new study that bears out something I ran across some while ago:

Now, new research from UCLA similarly suggests that "when compared to teens of the same age, adolescents raised by lesbian parents are doing just fine socially, psychologically and academically."  CNN described the findings of Dr. Nanette Gartrell, who led the study funded by several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews...

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.

Gartrell explained that the mothers' strong motivation and involvement, as well as the fact that all of the pregnancies were planned, could account for the findings.  ""I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said, adding, "I didn't expect better."

Here's another article with more detail, including as quote from Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America:

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

Somehow, having someone like Wright talking about common sense and reality just doesn't quite cut it. I mean, this is an organization that cites the "research" of Paul Cameron.

Avenging Angel, the diarist, starts off with the story of poor Bill McCollum, who seems to have shot himself in both feet by hiring George Rekers as an expert witness in the Florida adoption case.  Just as a reminder, here's the judges comment about Rekers' testimony:

"Dr. Rekers' testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

The kicker here is that this wasn't the first time Rekers' testimony had been discounted, and McCollum's own staff recommended against using him.

Can you say "living in a fantasy world"?

This is important, I think:

Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

This is from John Podesta and Robert Levy, who will be co-chairing the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group that is backing Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, a/k/a "the Prop 8 case." This one is getting the support of people from across the political spectrum, which points out to me that it's a very strong case, and the time is right.

Another tidbit from the Obama administration, this time from HUD:

For the first time in its history, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will require grant applicants seeking HUD funding to comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws that protect lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Today, HUD published a notice detailing the general requirements that will apply to all of the Department's competitively awarded grant programs for Fiscal Year 2010.

And the IRS has extended some very limited recognition to gay couples -- in California.

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that same-sex couples must be treated the same as heterosexual couples under a feature of California tax law. Advocates for the change say it is the first time the agency has acknowledged gay couples as a unit for tax purposes.

The change reverses a 2006 IRS ruling and opens a tax benefit to many same-sex couples that wasn't available before. It may affect couples in Nevada and Washington state, as well.

Specifically, the agency said nearly 58,000 couples who are registered as domestic partners in California must combine their income and each report half of it on their separate tax returns. Same-sex couples account for an estimated 95% of the state's domestic partnerships; partnership status is also available to heterosexual couples in which one partner is over age 62.

I'm waiting for the cocktail party.

And the DADT non-repeal is not out of the woods yet:

Republicans are eyeing a provision that would require all service chiefs to certify that repeal — allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly — can be implemented consistent with the military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention.

That's the best way they can think of to kill it. I have to wonder why, aside from Obama hate, they are gearing up to make something so non-controversial into an issue. Last poll shows 78% of Americans in favor of repeal, but the service chiefs and John McCain have been doing everything they can do to screw it up. It would be nice if Obama would show some balls on this one, but it has to do with Teh Gays, so don't hold your breath.

Small progress, but progress, nonetheless.

Honesty

Here's a very good post from David Link at Independent Gay Forum. I usually stop by there to see who I can disagree with (and am usually rewarded), but this time I have to agree wholeheartedly:

It all begins and ends with the closet. But for this anachronistic social convention that is as useful today as a hitching post, Thomas would not have needed to try and convince first himself, and then someone of the opposite sex that he was straight. It is not enough, in this scheme, that we deceive ourselves; heterosexuals, too, have to be equally and everlastingly drawn into the fraud, some of them at the most intimate level.

This is really what the Maggie Gallaghers, the Joseph Nicolosis, the James Dobsons are encouraging: that we be fundamentally dishonest about who we are, and use that dishonesty to live our lives the way they think we should. They don't really seem to care very much about the damage they are doing, not only to us (and given their attitude toward gays, which, fine words notwithstanding, is unremitting and contemptuous hostility, I can't see that they could be expected to care about hurting us), but to those who, whether knowingly or not, get sucked into the charade.

(Oh, and in case I haven't said so in so many words, forget about "preserving marriage." NOM, the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, and their fellow travelers have offered nothing that actually preserves marriage, nothing of any help to married couples. Their program is entirely negative, entirely directed toward exclusion.)

I am truly looking forward to the day when we can consign the "pro-marriage" forces to a sardonic footnote and be as honest as humanly possible about who we are.

Uganda, and a comment on the War Against Kevin Jennings

A quickie, noting some significant developments in the "Kill Gays" bill before the Ugandan parliament.

First, from Jim Burroway, this note about an op ed in the Ugandan official news, written by a close adviser to the president. It seems pretty strong to me:

And that is where same-sex lovers’ haters will do their nut! The recent month I was away a parliamentarian introduced a Bill of hugely draconian measure, including heavy penalties on those who wouldn’t report same-sex lovers they knew about! In the US there was a man whose name, McCarthy, is now a synonym (as mccarthyism) for cruel witch-hunting. For him Communism was the hot issue, although he would doubtless have looked at same-sex love as a product of that political system.

In the Inquisition period, evil prelates tortured people who deviated from current beliefs, including by saying the world was not flat but round! Now we all laugh about these odd characters. Lower down the scale, people were tortured for being left-handed (indeed called sinister for it) or being very short, or being blind: in short for not being normal. I believe, and I am raising the bar, that we must laugh at this MP and others like him: laugh and stay sane. What crime have same-sex lovers committed, per se, by being who they are? Would those who believe God made mankind exclude them, and on what grounds?

Remember that this is the government owned news outlet.

My second note is about Rick Warren, Obama's favorite Christianist. He's changed direction on the "Kill Gays" bill -- I guess he sort of had to, given his close ties to one of the bill's chief architects, Martin Ssempa. Warren originally tried to stay out of it:

However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides."

However, it seems the PR disaster-in-the-making was too much. Here's his statement as of this week:



He's gotten a lot of praise from the gay blogs for this one, but Ed Brayton is calling bullshit:

Without even acknowledging that he's flipped positions completely, one can only assume that the real reason for doing so is because he's taking a lot of heat for it and is in damage control mode. Anyone who has followed Warren for any length of time recognizes this as a pattern, where he backs vile policies and then pretends that he never did - even when he did so on video for the world to see.

He explicitly compared gay marriage to incest and beastiality, then lied and said he didn't. He explicitly endorsed Prop 8 in California and told his followers to vote for that referendum, then lied and said he didn't. In both cases, we have him on video saying exactly what he later denied saying. And he has never owned up to the lies.

This is Rick Warren's MO. We should all be used to it by now. So pardon me if I don't join others in praising his disingenuous johnny-come-lately statement. If he actually meant it, he would have said it the first time he was asked about it.

Rick Warren is, I think, one of the most facile snake-oil salesmen on the right. The only thing that keeps him out of the same league as, say, Lou Sheldon, Peter LaBarbera, Fred Phelps, and that whole wing is that he's not crazy. He's just a very shrewd manipulator who, for a change, is not a conspiracy thinker. Yes, of course he's a liar -- he sort of has to be, now doesn't he? But he's come out an made a video condemning the Ugandan bill in no uncertain terms. (And, as a sidebar, how is it that his good friend, president Obama, has remained mum? Any guesses on the depth of his commitment to equality for gays and lesbians?)

And speaking of Liars for Jesus, check out this post at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. I'm not going to excerpt it here, because it's something you need to read in its entirety. It's pretty gruesome. I will say, however, that I'd like to get this Allie Duzett in a corner and ask her some hard questions, starting with "How, as a Christian, do you justify spreading lies and inciting hatred against a total stranger?" I'd love to hear her answer.

New Jersey

Vote this week, maybe today, on same-sex marriage. Pam's House Blend is doing heavy coverage, including this letter from Peter Shumlin, president pro-tem of Vermont's senate and candidate for governor:

The opportunity to make a difference in the central civil rights movement of this generation-to join the heroes that came before us in shaping the march to a more inclusive and just nation- only comes a once in a political lifetime. Don't let this moment pass you by. And don't be swayed by the fear-mongers. I can tell you from firsthand experience: They're wrong.

It's a good letter -- read it.

The Boss also supports the bill.

Timothy Kincaid covered the committee hearing.

Footnote: As for New York, something tells me the next elections there are not going to be pretty -- for certain Democrats.

Genes and Epigenes

In sexual orientation. Interesting video from National Geographic that summarizes some of the findings on the role of genes in sexual orientation:



A follow-up from one of Andrew Sullivan's readers:

The National Geographic clip on twins was fascinating, not least for the language it used. At eight weeks, the clip says, the brain of a fetus with a Y chromosome is bathed in testosterone. "Not enough, " it hypothesizes, and the brain isn't sexualized to be attracted to women. The clip doesn't say if a fetus without the Y would receives 'too much' testosterone or 'not enough' estrogen at eight weeks to develop a same-sex attraction.

Later, the clip speaks of switches in the brain causing disease, and it flashes back to the gay twins as it emphasizes the word 'disease,' visually implying the gay twin is diseased, the straight twin isn't, because of the way the switches in their genes were activated. In both instances, the underlying tone is a tone of "being gay is wrong, a genetic disease." This tone, it feels to me, forgoes any question of potential gain for same-sex attraction, re-enforcing negative social bias.

I also thought it amazing that the research suggests attraction to men is the norm, attraction to women must be activated with a testosterone bath. I would have assumed the opposite, that attraction to men must be activated. (I am a heterosexual woman.)

This lays bare one of the pitfalls of popularizing science: the "not enough" testosterone comment would perhaps have been better phrased as "below a certain amount." The reader's objection to the assumption of normalcy in heterosexuality is legitimate, I think, although I think the "disease" comment is stretching a little -- I didn't get that impression at all when I watched the video, and I was looking for it. Sullivan comments:

Describing natural phenomena that are not of the norm, without describing them as somehow defective or diseased, is difficult given our cultural inheritance. I don't think all of it can be called bigotry as such; most of it is simply driven by majoritarian default assumptions. Freud saw homosexuality as not normal. But he didn't draw any "disease" assumption from that and saw heterosexuality as equally worthy of explanation.

What I see over and over again in these discussions regarding "normal" is another example of sliding definitions. In psychology, "normal" describes a range of behaviors, not a specific behavior out of a group. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that same-sex orientation is as normal as opposite-sex orientation; it is not legitimate to describe it as "abnormal" in any way.

One mistake that Freud's followers made -- not Freud himself, as Sullivan notes -- is that they consigned same-sex orientation to the realm of pathology, at great cost to their patients. There was no real support for it, and in fact, every reason to be wary of it -- they were dealing with populations that were, by definition, in emotional difficulty. It wasn't until the work of Evelyn Hooker in the 1950s that anyone thought to consider the vast majority of gays, who are happy, well-adjusted people.

As it stands, this summary confirms what I've been saying for a while: if you're looking for a "gay gene," give up. There's probably isn't one, because the genetic basis of human behavior is much more complex than that.

Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin also ran this video with a short commentary. The comments are worth checking out, if you can scroll past the flame wars.

Skeletons in the Closet

Via a good friend, this choice piece from Stephen Colbert:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Skeletons in the Closet
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

"The End of Gay": A Preamble

This is one of those topics that I keep meaning to come back to, and I'm building up a store of links and articles, but I'm not quite ready to dig into it yet. However, this piece by Jennifer Vanasco does look at one of the aspects of assimilation that I've noted before:

Not even gay people can tell that Jenny is gay, and it makes her sad.
"While society has gradually grown more accustomed to the idea that gay people can be flamboyant or perfectly ordinary, we in the gay community don’t always recognize our more subtle brothers and sisters on the street. We assume heterosexuality. Even in our own neighborhoods and our own shops."

“How can you be part of a community if no one can see you?” she asks.

Humans are a tribal animal, and if you’re gay, the LGBTcommunity is your tribe. We want other gay people to recognize us, because it makes us feel less alone. It makes us feel like part of something.

Or, as I've put it, it was a lot easier to know who to ask for a date when gay bars catered to gay people.

There's also the identity question -- what Andrew Sullivan tends to lump with "identity politics," which is not the same thing at all, but Sullivan isn't really very good at fine points.

I am terribly obvious about being gay. I'm not a flamer, by any means, I'm just very open about seeing things from my point of view -- i.e., that of a gay man -- and refusing to adopt any protective coloration. In fact, one reason I'm so obvious is that I got tired of women coming on to me and men passing me by (except, for some reason, the occasional straight guy). (File under "Stereotypes, masculinity")

This is one reason I'm pretty much convinced that, in spite of all the wishful thinking of "mainstream" gays, gay culture is not going to wither and die. We need it. We need to come home every once in a while, we need it as a refuge for our young people who are trying to figure out who they are, and we need it as a reminder to the rest of the world that no, we're not just like they are, and that's part of our value. That's one reason I lose patience fairly rapidly with the nervous nellies who keep screaming about excessive behavior at Gay Pride parades because we'll turn the straight people off. Jeebus! It's our holiday, FTLOP, get over yourselves. Has it occurred to anyone that the major portion of the audience for these things is straight people who come to see the parade --and bring their kids? (At least, that's the way it is in Chicago. I've ridden floats past rows of Latinas with their children, all cheering wildly.)

At any rate, read Vanasco's piece. It's entertaining as well as being spot on.

The Mormon Surprise (Updated)

Well, color me flummoxed. Andrew Sullivan has a sensible reaction, and if I can get over my shock I may subscribe to it:

It is possible to be cynical or begrudging in reacting to the LDS Church's unprecedented public decision to support civic protections against discrimination in employment and housing with respect to homosexuals in Salt Lake City. I think that is a temptation to be resisted.

What the LDS church has done in Utah is an immensely important and positive step and places the SLCGeorgeFrey:Getty Mormon church in a far more positive and pro-gay position than any other religious group broadly allied with the Christianist right. They have made a distinction - and it is an admirable, intellectually honest distinction - between respecting the equal rights of other citizens in core civil respects, while insisting - with total justification - on the integrity of one's own religious doctrines, and on a religious institution's right to discriminate in any way with respect to its own rites and traditions.

The key issue here is the recognition of the separation between civil law and religious doctrine, which is almost totally lacking on the religious right. (And then they bristle at the idea that they are trying to establish a theocracy.)

I'm not so sure about this:

The other thing to say about this is that it speaks very highly of the strategy of Equality Utah, the state's main gay group, who decided to call the LDS bluff when the church said it was merely opposed to civil marriage - and not other protections for gay and lesbian citizens. Equality Utah immediately tried to get the church to endorse civil unions. That was a non-starter, but in response, we have this support for an anti-discrimination ordinance.

Of course, establishing dialogue is always the preferred method of reconciling differences, but as Sullivan acknowledges farther along in this paragraph, that strategy has been resoundingly unsuccessful with the religious right at large: you can't talk to people who refuse to hear you.

I also suspect that the LDS leadership was not prepared for the backlash from their support of Prop 8 -- I think they got blindsided and were forced to reconsider their stance, which is probably what created the chance for dialogue to begin with. Sorry, but I am not as sublimely confident in human nature as Sullivan is. The basic human impulse is to leave things alone as long as they're not completely intolerable, and that applies to political positions as much as anything else. My take is that the LDS Church got whacked, and whacked hard, and had to rethink its position on gay rights real fast in order to avoid a complete PR disaster -- and remember, the LDS Church is not one that most people in this country accept without misgivings. And I don't think the Mormon leadership is so naive as to think an alliance with the Pope and the likes of Rick Warren is going to last very long -- talk about a nest of vipers.

(Update: There's some support for my view in this post from a reader at Daily Dish:

Third, the LDS Church is extremely sensitive about its public image and wants to be accepted in the mainstream of American life.

There's a reason why the LDS Church spends millions of dollars each years on sappy commercials. There's a reason why an LDS prophet accepted blacks into full membership of the Church after the tide had turned in the Civil Rights Movement. And now, at a time when the Catholic Church should be afraid that it's becoming all about abortion, the LDS Church had rightly become concerned that it was becoming synonymous with homophobia at a time when the arc of history was moving in the other direction. There's reason (and public relations) behind this week's revelation.

The writer also mentions the Mormons' pragmatism and openness to being persuaded by evidence, something that you won't find among the evangelicals and the Catholic hierarchy. Interesting take -- read it.)

That said, whatever the motivations, this is a very welcome development, and one that I hope other conservative religious institutions will take a good look at. I've about lost hope for the Catholic hierarchy -- I think it was the current pope who remarked at one point that separation of church and state was a myth, and any organization that can calmly threaten to close its social service operations -- for which it has no problem accepting taxpayers' money, no matter their religious affiliation -- if D.C. legalizes same-sex marriage doesn't look like it's really capable of the kind of compartmentalization necessary to accept civil law as a separate realm -- but there are possibilities among other groups. I think.

Friday Gay Blogging on Thursday

Just a few links and quotes this morning -- I just realized I have a doctor's appointment that I have to leave for soon.

The theme for today seems to be "scum." First, take a look at this report from Think Progress:

Yesterday, the Family Research Council (FRC) put out a statement objecting to the Obama administration’s pledge to “establish the nation’s first national resource center” to assist communities providing services to elderly LGBT communities. The statement from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that there are now “as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.” Nevertheless, FRC is arguing that there aren’t many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early:

In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.

Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!

It still amazes me that groups that live in a fantasy world like this -- a "reality" composed, it seems, of equal measures of the nastiest, most mean-spirited reading possible of Christian scripture and the fantasies of a loon like Paul Cameron -- can get press coverage, and yet they've been defining the debate on gay rights for years.

However, I'd like to point out that FRC has maintained its perfect record: nothing that they claim in that statement is true.

And speaking of the unhinged, check out this report from Louise at Pam's House Blend: Peter LaBarbera, Brian Camenker, and Paul Madore held a "press conference" in Maine in support of Yes on One, the ballot measure to repeal Maine's new marriage law. Louise has also put together some related videos. This one's priceless -- LaBarbera at his best:



"Nobody wants to talk about it?" Peter, you don't talk about anything else.

By the way, if I'm remembering correctly, the "crowd estimate" for this shindig was 8 supporters, 10 press, and 15 representatives from No on One.

Louise has been doing amazing work reporting on the Maine campaign at Pam's House Blend; ditto Lurleen on the initiative in Washington State. Check them out.

Finally, NOM, the Mormon front run by Maggie Gallagher, has to obey the law, which is really going to twist her knickers. From Box Turtle Bulletin:

A federal judge has denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage for a temporary restraining order to suspend Maine’s campaign reporting requirements for ballot initiatives. NOM is currently footing nearly two-thirds of the total bill for Stand for Marriage Maine’s effort to pass Question 1. NOM complained that because they were not a Maine-based group, that they should be exempt from what they consider to be overbearing regulations for Political Action Committees. The court disagreed (PDF: 187KB/32 pages):

Maine’s compelling interest in ensuring that the electorate knows who is financially supporting the views expressed on a particular ballot question cannot be satisfied by one-time reporting. Instead, Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative. It will not do to say that a one-time disclosure in the week before the election is sufficient. That would not give the opposing viewpoint the opportunity to point out the source of the financing and seek to persuade the electorate that the source of support discounts the message.

Note that a similar suit was filed in Washington State to block release of donor names for the attempt to void the expanded domestic partnership law there, and the Yes on 8 supporters in California are also trying to block release of information about the workings of their campaign.

Why do you suppose these people have such problems with being open and honest about what they're up to, hmmm?

Racing. Catch ya later.

Now I Get It! Revisited

Andrew Sullivan has a blistering and spot-on post in reaction to Joe Solmonese's e-mail that I quoted yesterday. He not only nails Obama but Solmonese and the HRC, in a post titled "The Battered Wife Syndrome of the Human Rights Campaign":

What HRC have now done is give away any leverage or bargaining power the gay community has with the Obama administration. They are doing what they did with the Clintons: essentially apologize for being a burden and prostrate ourselves to the Democratic party in the hope that they will be kind to us in the very, very long run. And since at a federal level, almost everything is a Congressional act, there's absolutely no guarantee that Obama will even be able to fulfill any pledges past 2010, let alone 2017. And there's no guarantee that he will be re-elected in 2012.

You know, it took me years of getting to know myself and realizing that I am indeed a gifted and worthy human being. I was fortunate to have strong reinforcement from some very good people who were able to take me as me and not as a "gay man." Maybe that's one reason I resent so thoroughly the tack that HRC and the "wait and see" wing of the movement invariably take. I didn't get this e-mail for some reason. Probably because I don't donate to HRC. Even if I had money, I wouldn't. Sullivan gives credit where credit is due, but I would be more willing to cut some slack in the absence of oily, self-serving, spineless actions like this e-mail. Sullivan includes the full text of Solmonese's letter, and it's appalling. This particularly jumped out at me:

More importantly: today, and for the next seven years and three months, Barack Obama is the most powerful person in the world, with the largest bully pulpit, and the most power to effect change. To do the work, we have to work with our supporters in Congress and with the Administration. Whatever you think of the Administration's first nine months, you don't pass laws by sitting out. You pass laws by sitting at the table.

"You don't pass laws by sitting out." That is exactly what Obama has been doing on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, and the HIV ban -- nothing. Sitting out. "It's Congress' job."

But when the President signed a memorandum providing family protections and an inclusive non-discrimination policy for federal employees—policies for which HRC and our sister organizations had advocated—I was proud to be present. Our disagreement about DOMA did not require me to ignore a step forward for transgender federal workers and for same-sex partners. In turn, the President invited me because he recognized HRC's accomplishments in promoting those fair policies, and because he would not exclude a civil rights advocate for speaking up about our community's rights.

I wish he's stop making a big deal about Obama offering protections that already existed -- and that after Hillary Clinton had already made them mandatory in the State Department. (Now there's someone who has a very full plate and managed to pull off a victory for gays without a hitch.) Yes, Obama made them mandatory across the board. He could have done that on Day One and not after getting pinned to the wall because of that atrocious DOMA brief. (But then, of course, he would have been forced to come up with a substantive response on that issue. I guess it makes sense to keep something shiny and sparkly in reserve for those sorts of occasions.)

I'm with Sullivan, Aravosis, Andy Towle, Dan Savage, and Pam Spaulding. Even Jeremy Hooper, who's about the gentlest of gay bloggers, raises an eyebrow -- not at the specific content (and Hooper does make a good point that it can be interpreted not as a free pass, but as a "when we look back" message), but at the timing and tone, which I think are what offend me the most.

Now, is Joe right to be so optimistic? Well, that's a separate question. And in my humble opinion, this was not the best type of message for the head of the biggest, most oft-criticized LGBT rights group to send at this, a time when most LGBT activists want to see more of a crystal clear plan than a crystal ball. But I do think it's a little disingenuous for any of us to pile on to HRC simply on the basis of the wording of this one email message. Especially when we can criticize HRC for that ivory tower that they call an office. ;-)

Jeremy does know how to twist the knife, doesn't he?

Spaulding has an update: Solmonese "clarified" the message.

And here are Solmonese and Cleve Jones, organizer of the March for Equality, on Hardball:



Frankly, as I've noted here before, I have reservations about the March, but it turns out that the president is in town and Congress is in session after all -- except for Barney Frank, who doesn't seem to be in favor of gay civil rights this week.

Now I Get It! (Updated)

If you behave nicely and wait your turn, what you get is -- increments!

And now, to add insult to the injury, we face the subtle bigotry of "incrementalism." The White House has found a new buzzword - a rhetorical silver bullet to get the President off the hook for yet another forgotten promise. It's a common tactic of this particular White House. For example, did that promise to get DADT repealed suddenly become more trouble than it's worth? No problem. Simply change your commitment from "repealing" DADT to now only promising to "change" it in an incremental way. That way, you can take a small Solomon-esque step towards putting a friendlier face on the daily discharge of two gay service members under this administration, while still keeping the main policy in place and hopefully avoiding the pesky controversy that often comes with principle.

In three stories in the past twenty-four hours we've seen the appearance of the "incrementalism" buzzword (here and here), and one story reports that President Obama is going to explain to our community on Saturday night how necessary incrementalism is to achieving our rights.

Don't believe it. It's a smoke screen. There has been no incremental movement whatsoever by this administration towards repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, repealing DOMA, or passing ENDA. Again, I take you back to the gay passports. It's a nice gesture, don't get me wrong. But how is putting our partners' names on passports in a handful of states, holding a cocktail party for some gay leaders while banning others, issuing a Pride Proclamation, and nominating a gay ambassador to an island when we've had gay ambassadorial nominees for 12 years already - how does any of this even incrementally advance the President's major commitments on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, the HIV travel ban, and so much more?

Do you suppose the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in increments?

Obama and the Democrats are facing a major revolt in 2010. If they lose seats in Congress, it will be because they lied to us in 2008. I wish there were someone in the House or Senate who had balls like Alan Grayson's speaking on behalf of gays. What we get is Barney Frank saying "Keep quiet!"

And the sad part is that Aravosis is absolutely right: we're not even getting increments. We're getting backpedaling and stonewalling in the form of cocktail parties.

And frankly, if one of the attendees at tomorrow's HRC soiree doesn't stand up and give Obama hell, I wash my hands of the entire gay establishment. (Of course, I'm close to that already, but I do maintain a little hope.)

But then, I stopped expecting miracles a while ago.

Update: Timothy Kincaid has an angle I hadn't though of:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying “to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now.” It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

If we are now presenting awards based on intentions and promises rather than on actions and accomplishments, then no doubt the Human Rights Campaign will be awarding the President on Saturday with the Fierce Advocate Award.

It appears that Joe Salmonese is paving the way for a big speech tonight that says -- nothing:

I've written that we have actually covered a good deal of ground so far.

And what exactly is that? Granting benefits -- and not the critical benefits, mind you -- to the partners of gay government employees? The same benefits that were available under Clinton and Bush? Allowing the people in some states to include their spouses on their passports? Asking the Pentagon to think about how they would implement the repeal of DADT -- when they have a minute to spare?

I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will look back on the President's address to my community as an affirmation of his pledge to be our ally. I will remember it as the day when we all stood together and committed to finish what Senator Kennedy called our unfinished business. And I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will also look back on many other victories that President Barack Obama made possible.

I've got news for you, Joe -- it's not Barack Obama making anything possible. Barack Obama is reneging on every campaign pledge he made to this community. What's happening is happening in spite of him -- and in spite of you and HRC.

Words are cheap. And now we know HRC's price.

Sullivan Gets Pissed (Updated)

And rightly so. He takes on James Bowman, writing in the Weekly Standard:

Just when you think the Weekly Standard's institutionalized contempt for gay people could not get any worse, along comes James Bowman's defense of barring openly gay men from military service:

Facing enemy bullets--is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity. We also know that most heterosexual males' ideas of masculinity are inextricably bound up with what we now call sexual orientation. In other words, "being a man" typically does mean for soldiers both being brave, stoic, etc.--and being heterosexual. Another way to put this is to say that honor, which is by the testimony of soldiers throughout the ages of the essence of military service, includes the honor of being known for heterosexuality, and that, for most heterosexual males, shame attends a reputation as much for homosexuality as for weakness or cowardice.

Sullivan rips him a new on in the polite way that only Sullivan can do it.

I have a very short response to Bowman's fact-challenged fantasy: The Sacred Band of Thebes. To anyone who knows anything about military history, that name is still up there as one of the most shining examples of courage, determination, and sacrifice ever known. And for those who don't know, the Sacred Band was a group of three hundred warriors composed of pairs of lovers, all men, who were one of the most feared fighting forces in the ancient Greek world. They were finally annihilated by Alexander at Cheironaea: he offered them terms and they refused to surrender to overwhelming odds because to do so would sully their honor.

Bowman is obviously really reaching here -- I mean, come on: the "honor" of being known for heterosexuality? Give me a break.

Read Sullivan's piece. It's choice.

Update: I did read Bowman's whole piece. Believe it or not, the quote that Sullivan uses is probably the most cogent and realistic part of it. The rest is even more a fantasy. Bowman trots out all the old, worn-out talking points of the right, from the "unique nature" of the love between man and woman to the "moral" aspect of having gays serve openly to the "unit cohesion" of the "band of brothers" one serves with. Lord. Love. A. Duck. (He also hauls out the Military Times poll that's been pointed out as biased, but doesn't acknowledge any of the other polls that show that most active service-members don't really care -- they're much more interested in whether the guy covering their back can do the job than in who he's sleeping with.)

Bowman also seems to have a problem with gay service-members being honest about their orientation -- oh, wait, honesty is in very bad odor on the right these days, isn't it? It's OK to have gays in the military (or should we call them "hommosectionals" to keep in line with the right-wing's normal idea of civility) as long as they're firmly in the closet.

The funniest part is where Bowman refers to "unbigoted" reasons for opposing repeal of DADT. Pity he couldn't come up with any.

Update II: Timothy Kincaid also takes a look at Bowman's "unbigoted" reasons to continue DADT -- and finds them just as specious as I did:

So in summary, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the following:

1. “Being a man” means experiencing contempt for gay men.
2. Robust heterosexuals fear any relationship that might be too close – just a matter of degree – to a homosexual relationship.

In other words, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the assumption that heterosexual men – those who are robust and take pride in being a man – rightly fear and hold contempt for gay men.

And those are Bowman’s “sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”.

Bowman's problem is not that he can fool some of the people some of the time, but that he can't fool anyone at all. Except maybe himself.

Kevin Jennings

I had been planning to post a bit on the controversy surrounding the appointment of Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. Jennings is also the founder of GSLEN, a critically important organization in the lives of any number of young gay men and women. Of course, appointing someone who actually understands the issues involved and is sympathetic to the people affected is anathema to the right wing, and in Jennings' case they've seized on a story he's told any number of times. Jim Burroway has what seems to me to the best summation, so I'm not going to crowd the field any further.

For most people, this story, taking place as it did in the late 1980s, would be about how critical it is for LGBT students to have someone they know they can turn to in safety and confidence. It is also a story that illustrates how a young man can be made so desperate coming of age in a culture that condemns everything about him. But for some, this was a story has become about an underage fifteen-year-old student having sex with an adult, and Jennings’ failure to report this “statutory rape” or “molestation” to authorities.

Of course, the fundies only want statutory rape reported when it's two men involved. If one of the participants is an underage woman, and especially if the perpetrator is a preacher, it's OK.

And it turns out that the young man in question was of legal age at the time, which in Massachusetts is (and was) 16. Alvin McEwen posted at Pam's House Blend reporting the evidence and corroborating that particular and vitally important bit of information. However, don't look for any retractions from the right. McEwen passes on Peter LaBarbera's reaction to the news:

You are so pathetic Alvin. Hanging on a technicality. You are as corrupt as the perverted movement you serve. Spare me the preaching.

Those who are slightly less deranged than LaBarbera will probably just slide past it and on to another point of attack, but they'll be thinkig the same thing.

Here's a CNN report that gets it mostly right, although the reporter's comment that new evidence "suggests" that the student was of legal age is wrong. It doesn't "suggest" any such thing -- it states unequivocally that the kid was at the age of consent, and that includes Jennings' book, a statement from his lawyer from 2004, and a statement from the man in question himself.



The most encouraging thing about this report is that the administration may finally be digging in its heels and supporting Jennings against the hate groups. We'll see if their balls have enough juice to stay the course.

Update: That CNN report seems to have vanished from every site that had it posted. If I manage to locate it at CNN in some sort of imbeddable form, I'll stick it in -- or at least see if I can get a link. In lieu of that, here's a follow-up story. (Note that Tony Perkins, one of the more repellent of the reality-challenged liars on the right, is still talking about child molestation, although there was no molestation involved in the incident Jennings related. I guess if you say it often enough, it's true, no matter what the facts are.)

Update II: And now it's back. Glad I decided not to re-edit the entire thing. Enjoy.

Do read Burroway's entire post -- then write to Obama supporting Jennings.

Vatican: Still Dodging Bullets

This time by using the "other kids do it, too" argument. They just don't get it. From The Guardian

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

And they're lying about it, too:

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

Try 15 to 17. An eleven-year-old is not an ephebe. An eleven-year-old is a child.

Melissa McEwan rips them a new one:

Okay, first of all, ephebophilia is not specific to people with same-sex attraction. Tomasi's implication that it's a uniquely "homosexual attraction" is patently false. The Catholic Church has been trying to blame its sex abuse problems on gay men since day one, in order to avoid its own responsibility for ordaining and protecting pedophiles, but that shit's been publicly debunked so resoundingly that the Holy See can't just scream "homo priests!" anymore.

So this is their new spin: Gay ephebophiliacs—which not only allows them to do an end-run around accountability for ordaining pedophiles, but also conveniently allows them to do an end-run around accountability for engaging in the vicious homophobia of gay-blaming for the sex abuse scandal for two decades.

And if this bit of rhetorical parsing weren't already pathetic enough in its attempt to redirect blame, it's not even accurate: Ephebophilia is not, in fact, the correct term for people who "sexually engage" with children ages 11-17. Ephebophilia refers to people who have a sexual preference for advanced adolescents; hebephilia refers to people who have a sexual preference for those in early puberty; and pedophilia refers to people who have a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. Most 11-year-old are not advanced adolescents, and many, especially boys, are still pre-pubescent.

The Catholic Church has a problem with priests who rape children below the age of consent. That is a fact which is not changed by what name it's called. And, at this point, the last thing any thinking person with a conscience wants to hear from the Vatican is a bunch of bullshit technicalities being substituted for any serious acceptance of accountability.

But, as usual, that's all we're gonna get.

Andrew Sullivan's summation:

But this is Ratzinger's real view: that the sex abuse crisis was basically a liberal plot to discredit the Church, rather than what it was, an international conspiracy for the molestation of children, enabled by the Vatican.

The hierarchy is busting a nut trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the Church was doing just what Sullivan says: enabling and abetting child molesters. For decades. Here's a devastating story from one of Sullivan's readers:

I grew up in Boston and was raped by priests beginning at age 6. I just let you into a very small circle. When the predators who liked young children had no more use for me because I had aged they traded me to other priests. Unlike some I have remembered my abuse on a daily basis (forgetting would be such a blessing). While the Pope may find comfort in the fact "that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse," he should wonder and worry about the morality of the many who knew and said and did nothing. From my experience I would say that over 50% of the other priests knew and allowed the horror to continue. As an adult I have talked with some and their evasions and justifications are disgusting.

I chose not to sue the Catholic church because I did not think that punishing the people of the church, taking their hard-earned money, would help my mind or slay any of the demons. Plus I hoped that the church would have some kind of soul-searching, maybe public hearings, that would shine a light on that whole ugly chapter in its history. So far all we have is rationalizing and blame-shifting.

It's this sort of thing that points up to me the moral bankruptcy of the Catholic hierarchy. I should point out that I think it's endemic to all hierarchical institutions, but the Catholic Church has made itself the prime example. If the hierarchy had dealt with this problem in a timely and transparent manner, and penalized the deviants instead of enabling them, I would be hold a different view. But I think the Church's actions, as exemplified by this statement, speak for themselves.

Vile

I've sat on this one for a couple of days on purpose, until my blood pressure came back somewhere close to normal. Even for Dan Riehl, this is appalling. (I've encountered Riehl's comments on gays before -- he's an empty gasbag.) It's one of the most disgusting pieces of slander I've ever read, from anyone. Riehl, who admits he has absolutely no basis for anything he writes here, has decided that the census worker murdered in Kentucky, Bill Sparkman, was a child molester. Oh, he doesn't actually claim that, he's just "speculating" on the basis of -- well, nothing:

Before any more people start going bonkers that I'm accusing Sparkman of anything, take a breath. I've done a fair amount of crime blogging mixed in with politics over time. One doesn't rule anything in or out without some firm answers. People feel free to speculate about Meth labs and pot fields but none have been reported in the area, yet. All I'm doing is looking at any and all possibilities. You'd think a moonshiner, or Meth head would have just buried the guy. Why hang him and invite the Feds into it by writing Fed on his chest? Why strip him naked and bind and gag him, which has serious sexual overtones?

I have no idea what happened, but from the reporting I've seen, neither does anyone else. If he adopted a boy as a single man, or was married and split with the wife and kids, who knows. But I never assume I know a story or motive until I know it. Right now we don't. I'm simply speculating on one possible alternative, however impolite.

Let me be equally impolite: Right off the bat, Riehl as good as says that he has no background and no qualifications (other than his standing as a professional homophobe) to be speculating on this. ("Crime blogger"? WTF is a "crime blogger"?) Riehl is bringing up this "possible motive" because it's somewhat more than impolite, and that's the only reason. It's safe, if you happen to be a right-wing professional homophobe -- Sparkman isn't in a position to defend himself, the circumstances point in an entirely different direction -- directly at the crazed wingnut Beckbots that Riehl seems to be attempting to cultivate -- and it's a golden opportunity to smear gays as a group, because after all, everyone knows that gay men only adopt boys to molest them. (Although I must also point out that Riehl offers absolutely no evidence that Sparkman was gay, either.) (Another note -- further reading on this revealed the fact that Sparkman's son is in his twenties.)

Sullivan, I think, treats this too lightly:

But the far right is obviously concerned that its violent anti-government rhetoric might at some point be implicated. So what do these people do? Notorious homophobe Dan Riehl pre-emptively asks if Sparkman was a gay child predator, because he had an adopted son. He has no other evidence at all.

Sorry, Andrew, but the fact of a single man adopting a son is not evidence of anything. It's not that Riehl is offering "no other evidence" -- it's that he's offering no evidence at all.

I do think, however, that Sullivan points to a plausible motivation: gods forbid that the Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly complex (which Riehl apparently wants to join) should actually suffer consequences for their hate speech, so best to deflect as soon as possible when something really happens.

You know, the anti-gay right doesn't really have to continue to prove itself morally bankrupt -- we've already gotten the message loud and clear. And has anyone spoken to Riehl about the psychological process of projection, and how easy it is to spot? Like, maybe he should be a little more circumspect about voicing his fantasies?

Riehl may have achieved one of his goals -- he got lots of attention in the blogosphere. Robert Farley, John Cole, and Jesse Taylor all come to the same conclusion, in almost identical terms:

1.) What if he was?

2.) Wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to theorize?

Ed Brayton goes into slightly more detail, but comes to the same conclusion.

Jeff Fecke alerted us to a piece by Dave Weigel, who managed to get a statement on this from Dan Riehl's godmother, Michelle Bachman (R-Our Lady of Bethlehem), who hates census workers:

After the speech, Bachmann had only a few minutes to sign autographs and collect a stack of CDs and books from fans who’d followed her into the lobby. I caught up to her as she headed outside and asked if she had any response to the murder of a Kentucky census worker, having noticed that the Census, a constant target for Bachmann, did not figure into her speech. Bachmann recoiled a little at the question and turned to enter her limo.

“Thank you so much!” she said.

But then, it would appear that Bachmann is exactly the sort of loon that Riehl is trying to protect here.

Let's summarize: A notorious right-wing homophobe, commenting on the murder of a census worker, pulls out of his ass the idea that the man was killed for being a child molester. There is no basis for that supposition whatsoever, and the investigation to date has, in fact, pointed toward the obvious conclusion -- the man was murdered for being a "federal agent." But that's not going to stop Dan Riehl, who has managed to kill two birds with one stone: he's deflecting criticism from his own cronies on the right, and smearing a whole group of people, all in one completely irresponsible commentary.

A pre-publication update: Here's Barbara O'Brien on Riehl. It's brilliant.

Before any more people start going bonkers that I’m accusing Dan Riehl of anything, take a breath. I’m just saying one doesn’t rule anything in or out without some firm answers. After all, Riehl is a man, and most serial rapists are men. All I’m doing is looking at any and all possibilities.

And the first commenter at O'Brien's post brings this up, which I also ran across in relation to this piece:

Apparently now he’s twittered that it was meant as Lib bait, as in, “gee, can’t you Libs take a joke?”

You have to ask yourself, which kind of person (to use the term in its broadest sense) would smear the reputation of a murder victim as a joke?

Stupid, or Disengenuous? (Updated)

Meg Whitman, who wants to be the GOP candidate for governor of California, came up with this priceless bit of -- well, something:

So as you know I am pro-civil union and not for gay marriage. And just for me, that term marriage, for me needs to be between a man and a woman...I do not feel it is a slap in the face [to millions of gay and lesbian Americans]. I had a terrific record at eBay, an excellent work environment for people of all different backgrounds and all walks of life. And as I said I am pro-civil union.

I bet she has gay friends, too.

Think about that in the context of this story, via Box Turtle Bulletin:

…The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients’ visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit. The court has given the Langbehn-Pond family until October 16 to review the ruling and consider all legal options.

The hospital's statement:

Jackson Memorial Hospital also issued a statement:

We have always believed and known that the staff at Jackson treats everyone equally, and that their main concern is the well-being of the patients in their care. …Jackson will continue to work with the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to ensure that everyone knows they are welcome at all of our facilities, where they will receive the highest quality of medical care.

The phrase “everone knows they are welcome” stikes me as perhaps the most cynical statement ever made by any organization or individual.

Update: Pam Spaulding has more detail on this story.

(Personal note: I was born in that hospital. I almost regret it.)

Jim Burroway has the best take on Whitman and her ilk:

Whatever Whitman may wish to believe, I think we can all agree that the recipient of a slap is in the best position to judge whether he or she was slapped or not.

Do you suppose it's ever going to penetrate the hard-shelled mind of any politician of any stripe that no one gives a shit what their personal beliefs are until they try to write them into the law of the land? Even Obama has that one figured out (or did until Rahm Emanuel started running the government).

Update II: Add rapper Warren G to the list of those who just don't get it:

I ain’t against gay people. I’m just against it being promoted to kids. . .
I know people that’s gay. My wife’s got friends that are gay. I got family that’s gay. Cousins and shit. He cool as fuck. He cool as a motherfucker. He’s my homie. I just mean that on some of these TV shows, they got dudes kissing. And kids are watching that shit. We can’t have kids growing up with that. . . .but let’s keep it behind the scenes. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with it if that’s what two dudes wanna do. Cool. But that’s not bring that out into the world, where the kids can see that. We don’t want all the kids doing that. ‘Cause that ain’t how we was originally put here to do. Like I said, I ain’t got no problem with the gays.

Poster Alvin McEwen calls it "hypocrisy," but I don't think that's really accurate. I'm actually figuring cognitive dissonance somewhere on the scale between idiot and moron. McEwen spends the bulk of his post contrasting Warren G.'s remarks with the behavior of straights, especially the behavior of the African American community as reflected in the rapper's music, and he is in a much better position to do that than I am. I'm taking it back a step. Explain to me in rational terms, without reference to your own religious beliefs, what's wrong with two men kissing. Especially if you don't have a problem with Teh Gays. And why shouldn't kids know that it's acceptable behavior?

Jackass -- would you listen to yourself?