Category Gay Politics

Entries 69 Total

Stupidity Reaches Fever Pitch in Indianapolis

Sep 29, 10 11:05 PM

I’ve read about a lot of idiotic things lately. I thought watching people carrying signs that said “stop the Christian Taliban” in San Diego during an anti-Prop 8 protest topped it. I’ve seen something that really one-ups it. The City of Indianapolis is investigating a family-owned business after allegations were made that the owner had discriminated against a customer. How?

They refused an order for rainbow cupcakes for a National Coming-Out Day party.

First of all, I think National Coming-Out Day is not what it was intended to be initially. Once celebrated as a call to be honest and open if it was safe, it is now just another “look at me, I’m different!” campaign designed to pressure those who are living quietly to be more open and celebrate those like Perez Hilton (jackass!) who seem to think it is their mandate to out anybody who has chosen to live the aforementioned quiet life.

This incident began when Shan Parker, a student at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, went to local bakery Just Cookies to place an order for rainbow cupcakes for a campus NCOD party. He was first told that the bakery does not make cupcakes – hence the name “Just Cookies” – and that the bakery didn’t have the materials needed to make such an order. Later, however, co-owner David Stockton clarified another reason. He said, “I explained we’re a family-run business, we have two young, impressionable daughters and we thought maybe it was best not to do that.”

Uh-oh. Now the fight is on. Even Fox59 is headlining the story, “Homophobic Bakery: Local bakery refuses to make rainbow cupcakes for gay customer.” What’s more, the Indianapolis City Council is vowing to investigate the incident – and Republican mayor Gregory Ballard is getting in on the act, too. His spokesman, Robert Vane, said, “The city’s position is, it’s the city’s market, it’s a public place…whatever this gentleman’s personal views are, it cannot interfere with the providing of a service or allowing someone to buy their goods.”

Okay. I’d have a few questions. First of all, they say this bakery is located at the city market. Does the City of Indianapolis own the property? If not, what say does the City government have in any of this? If so, did the City’s representatives require the Stocktons to sign an agreement that they would not discriminate? Does their business license require an agreement to a nondiscrimination clause? If the City doesn’t own the property outright and doesn’t control the leasing options, they don’t have any right to intrude. Whoever owns the property and the leasing options has the final say, and if they didn’t include such requirements in licensing for the business or operation on the property (which I’m guessing they were not given such a requirement), then they don’t get a say, either.

We live in a free country. We have certain rights, yet among those rights are certain things we’re not allowed to do. I’m allowed to practice my religious faith as long as the belief I adhere to does not require harming or killing people and/or animals, using dangerous narcotics or keeping fifteen spouses, half of them being underage. I’m allowed to write as a member of the press as long as I’m not printing calls to violence or certain personally identifying information about other people. I am allowed to get a group of friends together for a gathering or celebration – as long as it is peaceful, meaning no riots, no stealing, no assault, no stopping traffic and no killing. I am allowed to petition the government as long as it’s honest and I’m not signing other people’s names to said petition. I am allowed to speak my mind freely, as long as I’m not issuing threats or inciting others to violence.

If a person believes that their race is superior, they are allowed to express that belief. Not many people will like them (unless they’re in the New Black Panther Party or La Raza, of course, which are acceptable because whitey did them wrong), but anyone is allowed to express racist ideas as long as they’re not violent. I don’t like Fred Phelps or his ilk, but they have a right to express their views. I may not like the fact that the Stocktons refused to serve a gay customer, but regardless of the reason for the refusal, to refuse is their right.

In the same vein, if this had happened to me, it would be my right to tell everyone I knew about what they had done and take my business elsewhere. If I had been the customer they denied service to I would have gotten a word-of-mouth grassfire going so that people knew not to go there. I would never expect the government to step in and tell a private business that they are required to serve me.

Look at it this way: we don’t like it when Christians come to protest and hand out gospel literature outside of gay pride festivals. We ask that police remove them to avoid disrupting the atmosphere and avoid possible violence. If we force businesses like this one to serve us, they will have every right to force us to simply accept their presence, no matter how rude, degrading or insulting their remarks might be.

If it turns out that the business license and/or the property owner required the Stocktons to sign a nondiscrimination agreement then they will be bound by it. If they weren’t, as I suspect, then the issue needs to be dropped. Period. Forcing other people to accept us is a double-edged sword. If we keep up like this, that blade will eventually swing our way.

Comments (1)

Equality

Aug 5, 10 11:26 PM

“The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal … Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible.” -the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Yesterday, a landmark ruling was announced that many gay and lesbian Americans have prayed for since 2008. Judge Vaughn Walker made the decision that didn’t really surprise anybody: he ruled California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional. Proposition 8 overturned a California State Supreme Court ruling that declared gay marriage legal within the borders of the state.

I say it wasn’t a surprise because Judge Walker is one of exactly three openly gay federal justices across America. I don’t think anyone doubted that he would rule the way he did. What pleased me wasn’t so much his ruling as it was his opinion.

It is no secret that I have long opposed same-sex marriage. My reasoning was that marriage is one of the last moral bastions in American culture; the benefits, financial and otherwise, were primarily meant to foster a positive atmosphere for raising children (and make it less expensive). I have argued that civil unions should be our fight, something that doesn’t infringe on what began as, and has ever been, a religious institution – whether those who partake in it see it that way or not.

Judge Walker has made a believer out of me, though. He brought up points that I had not considered. He also made me think of a few of my own.

At its heart, marriage has always been firmly rooted in religion. For the first two hundred years of American history, having a child out of wedlock was a taboo that could result in losing one’s entire life, career and all. It was the same way in most of the Western world until the 1960′s. That was largely due to religious sensibilities. It has long been seen as the responsibility of a pastor, rabbi or priest to oversee marriage ceremonies. It remains, to this day, the only legal institution in the United States that is presided over by both the church and the government at the sanction of the law.

Judge Walker disagrees with this, as do I. Married couples are not required to have children, nor are those who wish to have children required to marry. Marriage in today’s culture is supposed to be about love (or the benefits that come with it, particularly if you’re in the military). American culture does not support betrothing girls, nor is dowry paid any longer. Women have equal rights and equal footing with men, and interracial marriage was legalized decades ago. Plus, it is easy to dissolve a marriage nowadays.

The place of gay people in our culture has changed, too. Once seen as sick, twisted individuals in need of a cure, popular opinion (while not always bright and rosy) is far better than it once was. It’s no longer taboo to be gay or lesbian, unless your entire life is wrapped up in religion. We are portrayed as normal, productive members of society on TV and in the movies. We no longer have to fear losing jobs or housing because someone doesn’t like our sexual orientation. We no longer have to hide from public view or lie about who sleeps with us in our own homes.

Having pointed out that the current incarnation of marriage, as supported by the government, is heavily religious, I have to bring up another point. Judge Walker pointed out that marriage is now a civil matter. The establishment clause of the First Amendment says this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Walker also opined that of all of the testimony offered by the organization defending Proposition 8, all of it was personal opinion based almost entirely on Judeo-Christian beliefs. According to the First Amendment, Christians are allowed to believe as they like and express it peacefully. Congress, however, while unable to prohibit them from expressing their views, is also not allowed to write said views into law. It is up to the people to decide.

The final argument that has been made regards voters’ rights. Our process is in place for a reason. The biggest gripe is that the voters decided to enact this legislation, and by overturning it, Judge Walker is supposedly engaging in judicial activism. Not so. As long as he can truthfully argue his decision and prove that it has sound basis in law, including the Constitution, he isn’t writing the law – he is interpreting it, which is his job. Yes, the voters can enact any law they wish to enact. On the same token, another group can challenge the Constitutionality of that law. Our system does not begin and end with the popular vote. If it did, segregation might still be in place today. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, 12 Democrats and one Republican filibustered to stop its passage. They nearly managed to stop the bill dead in its tracks. Until the Supreme Court of the United States rules one way or another, the fate of marriage rights in this country will remain in a semblance of limbo.

I posted Robert Byrd’s comments at the beginning of this post for a reason. Byrd was a Democrat. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, managing to block it at least once before it finally passed. Despite those comments, made in 1996 in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Bill Clinton and defended by Barack Obama), our GLBT counterparts call us traitors for being politically conservative. They tell us we’re deviants for not all being registered Democrats. What has the current uber-majority of Democrats done for us? Nothing, so far.

Here’s something I bet you didn’t know about Walker. He was already openly gay when President Ronald Reagan first nominated him for the federal bench in 1986. Citing his representation of the US Olympic Committee against the Gay Olympics (a case where the USOC sued to stop the group from calling their event Olympic), Nancy Pelosi led the Democratic charge to block his appointment. It was George H.W. Bush who succeeded in appointing him to the bench he now holds. Fellow gay conservative Drew Sweetwater pointed out a few more facts. It was a Republican from Florida who first introduced legislation that would repeal DADT, Ileans Ros-Letinen; Democrats refused to allow her bill to move to a vote. Republican Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appointed an openly gay man as the country’s AIDS czar. President George W. Bush approved the highest funding in history for AIDS research. Sarah Palin’s first veto as the governor of Alaska was amazing: the Alaskan people voted to end benefits for the same-sex partners of state employees. Palin vetoed the bill.

I fail to see how Republicans have been the ones fighting against our equality in society.

In the end, the government must do one of two things in order to be in line with the true meaning of the First Amendment. They either need to make marriage legal for any couple comprised of two consenting adults, or they need to get out of marriage altogether, leave it to the church to define, and issue civil unions for all couples, whether gay or straight.

Comments (15)

Treasurer’s office expands gay partner benefits :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

Jun 13, 10 3:09 PM

Treasurer’s office expands gay partner benefits :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State.

Certainly a victory for gay rights.  However; Sarah Palin did a very similar thing years ago in Alaska.

Because this was done by a Democrat, it will get a lot more positive attention.

Comments (1)

Washington’s Dividing (Gay) Issue of the Year: D.A.D.T.

May 28, 10 1:13 AM

For about a week now, the number-one searched term on internet search engines like YAHOO! has been: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 

As with the previous administration, the current one is using an issue important to some members of the gay community to deflect from much larger problems most sane people would like dealt with first.

After completely failing the American people, Obama finally held a press conference today on the BP oil disaster which is closing down businesses, endangering the Gulf and all of its natural resources which human beings and wildlife rely on, and happened to kill a handful of decent hardworking Americans responsible for providing and refining energy that we need as a nation to remain productive.  In the conference, Obama accomplished what we all knew he was capable of doing: to assign total blame to BP and accept absolutely no substantial responsibility whatsoever.  

Couldn’t he have done this about 20 days ago?  Ahh, he must have been too busy playing golf, giving comedy routines to the Hollywood elite, and attending fundraisers and events for Barbara Boxer.  (Guessing by his track record of carrying candidates to victory in 2010 with endorsement, perhaps we can thank him for his contribution to at least one issue important to Americans: getting rid of pompous incumbents.)

And while he wasn’t playing golf and stumping for Boxer, he was busy having lavish state dinners with foreign leaders who attack American policies.  After inviting President Calderon from Mexico to the United States last week, we saw two Presidents disparage Jan Brewer’s noble efforts to protect Arizonans and rail in rounds of applause from a liberal Congress by trashing the majority of Americans who support it.  (Rumor has it one of those presidents were supposed to be American.)

Clearly Americans are royally pissed off at the administration and Congress which are reflected in the latest GALLUP tracking poll with the President’s approval rating at 46% and his disapproval rating at 47%.

What better way to attempt to distract from issues important to Americans like immigration and a current national crisis which goes far beyond the simple characterization of something equivalent to “Bush’s Katrina” than to stir up American disagreement on crucial matters of national security?

Clearly, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a matter of national security where its proponents have made their valid arguments and its opponents have made theirs.  Honestly, I am sorry, but I couldn’t care less about it right now.  Other than a few friends directly affected by it — one in particular who was kicked out of the military once it was discovered he was gay — it is not an issue that united Americans are focusing on.

Flashback a few years to George W. Bush.  If you recall; McCain, Kennedy, and GWB were trying to force amnesty down our throats before the 2006 midterm elections and in the heat of grassroots-American rage in its opposition to what became known as “shamnesty,” Bush directed Congress to jump on a divisive issue attached to homosexuality and they immediately began debating gay marriage.

Most strident adversity to gay issues like “gays in the military” come from people who equate homosexuality to a sickness or a social disorder of some kind.  But people change and in order to get them to change, we must exist in a society where the most important issues of the day like a national tragedy such as the oil spill or the complete and utter madness stemming from a simple Arizona law supported by the majority are discussed and resolved.

Clearly, this administration and its liberal congressional partners-in-crime are not, and have never been, interested in representing the core parts of its people who unite us.  If they had, their version of “health care reform” would have never had a chance to come up for a vote, we wouldn’t be using our hard-working tax dollars to contribute to bailing out Greece’s failed socialist policies, we wouldn’t be inviting foreign leaders who cannot control criminals within their own country to come on our soil and accuse us of all being racists, and we wouldn’t be witnessing the most embarrassing reaction to a national crisis.

Instead of blaming Bush this time, he’s blaming BP and has ripped a page out of the worst chapter of the Bush playbook: when you’re up against the ropes, turn against the voters and throw out a scapegoat issues sure to divide Americans to distract from finding solutions to our biggest current problems.

THIS is the extent of gay relevance in Washington.  It doesn’t matter which party is running the show.  But at least one of those parties don’t run around pretending to be our best friends so we foolishly walk into voting booths and pull levers to gratify their electoral hunger.

Until we can get matters on track like jobs, our economy, securing our borders, and assisting those in the southern states most affected by the BP gush, I’d prefer Washington stop using our community to divide Americans and screw with delicate matters of national security.

Comments (9)

The Cabin is On Fire

Apr 27, 10 11:47 PM

Founded in 1977, the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) got their start battling against California’s Proposition 6 (nicknamed the “Briggs Initiative”) which sought to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. The measure failed, in large part because then-Governor of California Ronald Reagan publicly opposed the initiative. Since then, Log Cabin has become synonymous with “Gay Republican” throughout the country.

In 2000, Log Cabin spent a half-million dollars on Get Out The Vote efforts after endorsing George W. Bush. After Bush’s victory, Rich Tafel, then-executive director of Log Cabin, said, “We believe the American people elected the better man to lead our nation.” No Republican on the planet would disagree with Tafel on this point. Bush was light-years better than Al Gore. But being the “better man” wasn’t good enough for the Log Cabin Republicans in 2004, when they refused to endorse Bush for re-election against John Kerry.

In 2004, the Executive Director of LCR was the liberal RINO Patrick Guerriero, a former mayor and state legislator from Massachusetts. Guerriero now serves as Executive Director for Gill Action, an organization founded by Tim Gill (a rich, gay, liberal philanthropist), who aside from being one of Log Cabin’s biggest donors, gives money almost exclusively to Democrats. Sounds like a cozy partnership. Back in 2004, Guerriero made this statement regarding LCR’s refusal to endorse Bush: “Log Cabin is more committed than ever to its core mission to build a stronger and more inclusive Republican Party. There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one President.”

Apparently Guerriero’s definition of building a “stronger and more inclusive Republican Party” includes voting for John Kerry – who supported a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts just 9 months before the 2004 election. Apparently his assessment that the “fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one President,” means supporting Democrats. Terry Hamilton, current Chairman of LCR, maintains that withholding the endorsement of George Bush over his support for a federal marriage amendment is not equal to supporting John Kerry. That must be why Log Cabin spent a million dollars on ads bashing Bush during the 2004 election, indirectly helping the equally un-gay-friendly Kerry.

The fact is, when you claim to be a Republican organization, you should be supporting Republicans – especially when you are the only Republican organization representing gays. Even when Republican gays and Republican candidates don’t see eye to eye on LGBT issues, it is far better to work for change from within the party, than by attacking the party. We’re not talking about a state legislative race here. We’re talking about the presidency of the United States, and you don’t have a voice if you’re not at the table.

Patrick Guerriero is single-handedly responsible for igniting the fire currently burning down the log cabin. In 2003, when asked about gay marriage, he said this:

“We need to change the language around the so-called marriage issue. We should be talking about fairness via a civil contract, which is what marriage really is. When people use the word marriage it brings up connotations of intervening in religious ceremonies and institutions. That is not at all what gays and lesbians are asking for. We’re asking for the right to have a piece of paper that recognizes our tax-paying, loving relationships, that offers us tax fairness in America. I believe that the more we focus on the notion of basic fairness and the civil nature of the so-called marriage contract the better off we will be.”

Change the language around the “so-called marriage” issue? What is this “civil contract” he speaks of? Guerriero even goes so far as to say that gays and lesbians are not asking for “marriage,” but a piece of paper recognizing their relationship. Fast forward to 2008, when Patrick Guerriero was brought on as the director of the “No on 8” campaign in California, and tried to get “every single LGBT adult” on board:

“If every single LGBT adult would, over the next couple of days, make a donation to this campaign, we will win,” Guerriero said. “And if they don’t, we will lose.”

But I thought gays and lesbians weren’t asking for marriage. I thought a piece of paper was enough. California already had a robust civil union policy in place, so why the change of heart? Why the full-on support for “so-called marriage,” as he calls it? The answer is that Guerriero is a liberal. Plain and simple. He has no desire to see Republicans succeed, because he places his homosexuality above the economic, financial and military soundness of his country. He claims to be a “conservative Republican,” but nothing could be farther from the truth. Just like most liberals, he throws his principles out the window whenever it suits his overall agenda. Guerriero was just in Las Vegas last month on behalf of Gill Action, for a fundraiser at the home of Bob Forbuss – a very well-connected gay Democrat.

Guerriero may have left Log Cabin in 2006, but not much has changed over at the self-proclaimed “nation’s only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom and equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” Their webmaster must have forgotten to change that language after the launch of GOProud. Although, maybe they don’t have a webmaster; after all, they haven’t had an Executive Director for 15 months!

And now, as if the ineffective and left-leaning Gay Inc-apologist Log Cabin Republicans haven’t tumbled far enough, spokesman Charles Moran praised the activist tactics of GetEqual in an article today. According to EDGE contributor Joseph Erbentraut, “[Moran] sees common ground between GetEqual and the Log Cabin’s call for stronger leadership on LGBT-specific legislation in Washington.” While we’d all like to see stronger leadership from the White House on every issue facing Americans, what does that have to do with chaining yourself to the White House fence? These are exactly the tactics that have damaged the image of the gay community among mainstream Americans, and the spokesman for Log Cabin is calling them “committed activists,” and expressing an interest to “work in concert with each other.”

What has happened to this organization? When did the Log Cabin Republicans become a left-leaning, superficially-Republican, Dede Scozzafava-supporting, Tom Campbell-supporting group, that makes a sport out of being just as feckless as Gay Inc. is on the left?

It’s a sad day for the Gay Right. Just as millions of Americans are realizing that Barack Obama is all flash and no fire, Gay Conservatives and Republicans everywhere are realizing that Log Cabin no longer has our interests at heart.

But fear not. GOProud has picked up the mantle, and they are running with it. Just as the refusal to endorse George W. Bush in 2004 was the most damaging moment for the gay conservative movement, GOProud’s co-sponsoring of CPAC in February was the Gay Right’s most shining moment in a decade. Someday Charles Moran, and the folks still clinging to fond memories of Log Cabin’s glory days, will realize that engaging and working with Republicans and Conservatives on issues affecting all Americans is the only way to be a productive part of our party and our society. Walking away from Republicans at the drop of a hat and joining up with the folks at GetEqual is like Obama promising to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, and then doing nothing.

How does it feel?

Comments (11)

Losing Both Battle and War

Apr 21, 10 12:24 AM

Today, GetEQUAL staged another protest. This time it was a two-pronged message; one was staged during President Obama’s speech at a campaign fundraiser for Barbara Boxer in Los Angeles last night. Today, Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo were joined by four other former military members in handcuffing themselves to the fence in front of the White House. It was the second time that Choi and Pietrangelo had done this.

GetEQUAL is comprised of gay rights activists to whom the details are unimportant. They have shown themselves willing to do almost anything short of running down Pennsylvania Avenue naked to get attention directed back at their cause: the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. I’m not sure what I think about them just yet because I can’t find any verifiable information about the organization.

I know for damn sure that I disagree 100% with the methods by which Choi, Pietrangelo and their associates are getting their message across. I agree with them that we need equal rights but I don’t agree with the delivery. First of all, they are in their military uniforms. They are blatantly disrespecting their orders. I applaud them for standing up for Army Core Values. There are seven core values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. Take one out and the rest crumble. For standing up for integrity and upholding their oaths, they have my gratitude and respect. I cannot abide them using their stand as a slap in the face to the rest of those values, though. There are both Republicans and Democrats holding out on repealing DADT, and their decisions will hinge on what their constituents want. If our actions turn their constituents off, we can kiss any possibility of equality good-bye for the forseeable future.

I have said for a very long time that we need to be wise in our approach to gaining equality. In 29 states it is currently still legal to fire an employee for being a homosexual. There are over 1,100 benefits and legal rights that are denied gay and lesbian people in the United States, among them laws that actually restrict one’s ability to pass creative and intelligence rights on to a non-related, non-married partner (meaning royalties for published writings or music can only be passed to relatives). There are several rights we still need to strive for, but doing whatever we can to get everyone’s attention isn’t going to get us there.

A few pointers. First of all, simply denying NAMBLA from marching in Pride parades or having booths at Pride festivals isn’t enough. Guys like Kevin Jennings need to renounce their time following Harry Hay, who supported NAMBLA (as well as the communist governments that round up homosexuals and send us to labor camps). Organizations such as GLSEN need to stop promoting gay rights to children in elementary school, stop putting books like “Am I Blue,” “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “…And Tango Makes Three” in elementary school libraries. They need to remove sexually explicit material of any kind from their suggested reading list, because frankly it is appalling that anyone is suggesting that seventh graders read books such as Queer 13. It’s mortifying to me that books like that are being suggested for anybody under the age of 18. To me, it comes awfully close to sexual abuse.

Stop holding gay sex seminars disguised as gay rights seminars. High schoolers do not need to be sent to classes in these seminars where the keynote speaker is going to encourage them to graphically describe their sexual fantasies in front of God and everybody and then go on to show them the proper hand positions for certain unmentionable acts.

Do you really think this kind of thing isn’t absolutely disgusting? If this is normal for you, there is something seriously wrong with your psyche and you should not EVER work with children. What kids learn in our society should be left up to their parents whether we agree with what their parents are teaching them or not. Keep pushing and, as we’ve all seen, they WILL push back. And there’s a hell of a lot more of them than there are of us. Being equal does not mean that we need to take their rights away. The instant we do that we’ll set ourselves up for the same loss down the road.

Yes, we deserve equality. We absolutely deserve equality. We’re every bit as human as anybody else. We live, breathe, love, bleed, cry and laugh the same way they do. Our rights, however, are not the most important thing here. We MUST be careful how and where we tread lest we lose not only the battle, but the war also.

Comments (8)

One Small Step for Equality

Apr 16, 10 2:17 PM

President Obama has made another controversial move today. He issued an executive order to the Department of Health and Human Services to end discrimination in hospital visitation. Here is an exerpt of what he had to say:

“Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

I’m conflicted on this. I’m very happy that, should something happen to me, I can make my own decision about who has the right to make decisions on my behalf and the hospital I’m in cannot override my choice. My partner will be allowed to visit me; hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid will not be allowed to limit my visitors to immediate family only. That has long been a contention with the gay community, and one I have always agreed with.

What I’m concerned about is the method through which Obama achieved this. His executive order, through checks and balances, can be overridden by either Congress or the Supreme court. It’s not easy, but it can be done. It is that very reason that Obama has refused to use the power of the executive order to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Maybe one issue is more heated than the other, but both are potential powderkegs and I don’t understand what his reasoning is for changing this universal rule without the approval of Congress, which would have been much more solid.

The power of the executive order is one that has long been controversial in and of itself. The president is capable of using this power for a myriad of things. Dwight D. Eisenhower used his executive power to forcibly desegregate schools. John F. Kennedy attempted to use his executive power to end race-based discrimination in employment and housing. Some small “holidays” or recognition days have been created by executive order. I don’t see a problem with the executive order per se, but it has been abused in the past – and in some cases, trying to do the right thing through this method has only resulted in more trouble.

Should I get into a serious vehicular collision or be shot in the head, there are certain relatives I would not want to have any right to make decisions for me. I should be allowed to choose who can be by my side. Should my partner ever be gravely injured, I would be absolutely inconsolable if her family were able to legally shut me out of her life. I cannot imagine standing outside the waiting room of an intensive care unit knowing that the one person I would give my last breath for is badly injured and I can’t get to her because her family never approved of our relationship and now they have the ability to kick me out of her life whether she likes it or not.

There are many theories about how this could end up working. Among them is that because there was no requirement in HIPAA that barred non-spouses and those not related by blood to visit in hospitals, executive order is perfectly permissable. For now, however, it’s nice to know that the hospital can’t kick our partners out in our moments of greatest vulnerability.

Let’s not forget, though, that this isn’t just about us. This is across the board for many different scenarios that have played out. Such policies about visitation rights have long been an issue for many different groups, gay and straight.

I’ll address the link to gay marriage later. Here’s a preview: I CALL BS!!!

Comments (4)

That’s Sooooo Gay!

Apr 14, 10 1:26 AM

Yesterday was the annual Day of Silence protest. Sponsored by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), the idea is simple: gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students and their straight allies spend the day in complete silence. If called on in class or spoken to in the hallways they show a card that explains they are participating in the Day of Silence to call attention to anti-homosexual bullying in schools and cannot speak at all. In a world where kids are allowed to talk over teachers in class, you’d think parents would be happy about a commitment to remain silent.

Not exactly.

Meet the Illinois Family Institute, which described DoS as, “…Day of Silence which is intended to increase society’s affirmation of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder.” The American Family Institute said, “on this day, thousands of public high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools will allow students to remain silent throughout an entire day-even during instructional time-to promote GLSEN’s socio-political goals and its controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.” Concerned Women for America said, “while wearing the mask of a “safe schools” program, this is actually a movement to silence any criticism of homosexuality. It is a homosexual activism day.” All of them supported the AFA’s assertion that DoS is “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Okay…I might be able to see some cause for concern with DoS, but a waste of taxpayer dollars? Exactly how does that work? How can you call a protest that amounts to nothing more than silence a waste of anything, much less money? The arguments that I read became more and more ridiculous until finally they called for parents to call their kids out of class during DoS and I just couldn’t read anymore.

What really angered me the most, though, was that these groups called the protest against anti-gay bullying “a manufactured crisis of violence upon gender-confused students.”

I blogged recently about my childhood and how I was bullied everywhere I went. It angers me that these groups would call the bullying crisis a work of fiction, something that was manufactured. I experienced it from the time I was in third grade. That was the first time a classmate called me a faggot. From then on, I had classmates in every school I went to call me every gay slur you can imagine. It wasn’t because of their religion much of the time, I don’t think. It was their ignorance. I was always fairly masculine as a kid, and nearly all of the bullying I experienced involved my peers taunting me for being gay even though at the time I denied it. Much of what was said was far too foul to add, but the most tame of the “jokes” were questions like, “are you a boy or a girl?” “Are you sure you’re a girl?” One Vietnamese kid at Webster got his kicks by walking up to me in the cafeteria and asking, “are you a lesbian?” loudly enough for the entire crowd to hear. On Valentine’s Day one year I was sent a carnation (something my school did at the time, you bought a carnation for $1 and had it sent to a student with a private note on the 14th), shocking everyone in my class. All the popular girls already had nearly a dozen by that time. The note, however, was a profane “joke” about how the boys might want me if I weren’t a faggot. This is all aside from the physical abuse that I simply took without much of a fight; I was always more afraid of getting in trouble with my parents for fighting than I was of taking a beatdown.

Manufactured? Invented? Don’t I wish.

The fact is that anti-gay bullying is as alive as it ever was. Parents, have you ever heard your kids say, “that’s sooooo gay!” when they see or hear something they deem idiotic? Do you know how they treat other kids at school? Do you know what they say when they’re surfing the web or sending 14,000+ text messages to God only knows who? Your little angels can be vicious, vile and cruel and then go to youth group on Wednesday night and pretend that they’re completely righteous. Other kids I went to church with – many of whom I also went to school with – called me faggot, queer, butch, dyke, and every foul gay slur that I can’t write here. Anti-gay bullying is hardly a figment of my imagination.

Of all the bullycides that have happened over the past few years, many surviving parents have reported that their kids were experiencing the same thing. In most cases, the kids weren’t gay or even questioning; but because they were different, the “cool” kids marked them for torture and the way kids still tear each other down is by labeling them “queer.” There is a good reason to have a protest like the Day of Silence. For you to claim that it is a waste of taxpayer money is absolutely preposterous. Yet for you to claim that the bullying doesn’t exist is almost more cruel than enduring it. Here, I have no trouble whatsoever calling you out and telling you that your behavior certainly isn’t Christ-like.

However…to be fair, as I said earlier, there is some small measure of reasoning to their belief that this protest is part of a wider push for indoctrination and even recruitment. GLSEN has a suggested reading list for pre-teens and teenagers among which are books such as “Queer 13″ by Clifford Chase, which I forced myself to read after finding it on their suggested reading list for grades 7-12 and have never felt more disgusted by anything I have ever read. There are many graphic gay sex books on the list, none of which I would want available to my nieces and nephews until they’re at least in college. Then there’s the conferences they hold that include both educators and teenagers. Topics range from coming out as an elementary school teacher, incorporating sexuality into world history, including GLBT lessons in the early elementary years and a number of gay sex-ed forums where speakers have shown teenagers the proper hand positioning for fisting and described the different ways lesbians can have sex.

I have to agree with them on one thing. You have no business, nor any right, to teach those subjects. You can teach tolerance without going too far and what I’ve read of your conferences and suggested reading are absolutely astounding.

“Christians”: the next time you hear your kid say “that’s so gay” you might try engaging them in conversation about how they treat their classmates.

Fellow homosexuals: we have gone too far. As long as I am openly a lesbian I will be seen as being a part of your movement, and if that’s the way it’s going to be then I will be heard. You can teach tolerance without having to cross that line and try to shock people to the point that you’ve merely numbed their wits. World peace starts with YOU.

For more information on the most recent cases of severe anti-gay bullying:

Ryan Halligan
Carl Walker-Hoover
Lawrence King
Eric Mohat
Jaheem Herrera

Comments (11)

Learn Your History

Apr 12, 10 3:06 PM

I have a new article up on www.RightPride.org about the truth of the beginnings of the gay rights movement, including things that are largely ignored by today’s gay rights activists. Here’s an excerpt:

Activists celebrated the death of Ronald Reagan as if Adolf Hitler had finally died. They forget something very important. Reagan stood solidly against Prop 6 as the governor of California, and he was in the same party as Briggs. They also forget that then, as today, Democrats have never had gay rights in mind. EVER. In Milk’s day (oh, and lest we forget, Milk worked for Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign), the Democrats snubbed the gay newcomers. Milk met a brick wall when he decided to get into politics. He had to fight tooth and nail; he lost three elections before finally winning. It wasn’t until Democrats finally figured out that the gay community in the Castro had real voting power that they became more accepting. While I will agree that the gay rights movement was important as part of the civil rights movement overall, how many other groups fighting for their civil rights behaved the way gays did at Stonewall and the Castro? Didn’t Dr. King earn more respect than the thugs? Tell me this, too – why is it the Democrats enacted the Jim Crow laws and Republicans ended both slavery and segregation, but the Democrats are now the good guys? Have we forgotten their roots?

Click here to read the whole thing.

Comments (3)

Irony? Try Hypocrisy

Dec 18, 09 8:13 PM

(There’s been a lot going on in my corner of the world…I’ve been “seeing” a girl from my hometown who’s in med school here in Arizona, and that’s the only information I’m going to give–she doesn’t want to be identified publicly and won’t give me pictures until she’s absolutely sure I will never, ever post them on Facebook or MySpace (no matter how much I swear). As a result I haven’t been spending much time going to the library or my dad’s to use a computer. Once I fix my computer next month it won’t be so long between posts and responses. There’s also been an event that has rattled several of my friends in public safety, and I won’t give many details as I’ve promised not to give much away, but an Arizona DPS officer was killed last night while laying down stop sticks to end a chase. Pray for his family; he had a wife and four children aged 4 months – 7 years.)

Reader BurningMonk added this comment a couple of days ago to the post Burn Their Churches to the Ground:

I’m so tired of the irony of your blog.

Spend time doing something for your community, like building one, not splintering off.

Fighting back is the only way to achieve freedom. Please just check out some of the violence against gays around the world and in your hometown…Please don’t be the gay that will walk by as I get beaten up or threatened.

Read the book “Faggots” by Larry Kramer, and start to get a clue about your history.

Stop spreading Hate please, Conservative Gay…thank you

I felt this needed its own post and response. Here it is.

I am tired of the absolute hypocrisy and shill nature of the gay rights movement.

I will always, regardless of who the target is, stand up and either speak or act in defense of those targeted unfairly. If I hear a politician spewing outright lies, I will call them out. If I hear a fellow Christian disparaging all gays as being sick and twisted, I will correct them. If I were to see someone being beaten by a group of people simply for being gay, I would have absolutely no fear in taking a few hits to fight to protect them–I am well-trained and not afraid to take or offer harm if the situation calls for it, though I don’t issue threats unless I am about to actually do harm.

Note what I said there: regardless of who the target is. That means that if I hear a gay rights activist saying or doing something wrong, I’ll stand up against you, too.

Wanting equal rights does not give anybody the right to do or say anything you please. We’re not being rounded up and put in camps. Hell, we’re not even being arrested under sodomy laws anymore. The big issues now are the right to marry and protections for housing and employment (hate crimes is marked off the list, thanks to you guys–I have always been firmly against any and all hate crimes legislation). Housing and employment I can certainly understand; nobody should be discriminated against as long as they are responsible, capable members of society. Marriage (Philip will likely disagree with me on this) is something I don’t think we should mess with, and I’m perfectly fine with civil unions as long as they offer the same benefits under the law.

Either way, proposing violence against your adversary simply because you disagree with them is never excusable unless they do violence against you first. THAT is hate, folks, whether you like it or not. By doing and saying these things you are, believe it or not, persecuting them, and that is something they actually look forward to.

I know the gay community’s history quite well, as do Philip and Steve. There is just as much hypocrisy and crime in our past as there is in everyone else’s. BurningMonk, if I saw you being beaten I would fight just as hard for you as I would for any of my friends. I would be willing to do severe injury–even kill–to protect you from the violent thugs who actually do threaten us. Those punks are not being led by Christians today, however, and I will not tolerate them being branded as hatemongers any more than I would tolerate the punks doing violence.

If you want to know where the hate is, take a long hard look in the mirror. It’s a two-way street.

Comments (3)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 347 other followers