The Christian Right AND Left vs. Dan Savage

Some interesting developments this past week in the brouhaha over Dan Savage's recent comments about the Bible and religion.

First we have the Catholic League, that staunch defender of the Catholic Church's right to hide the sexual abuse of children. It's spokes-moron Bill Donahue is spluttering with righteous indignation over yet another speech where Savage dared point out the sheer idiocy of the current Pope's position on Same Sex Marriage, and follow on impact the Pope's words have in how many Catholics view LGBT people.  (The Right Wing hate group  "Americans for Truth"  has the  'shocking video!')



Now  we have the other side of the  Ecumenical  aisle  weighing in on  Dan Savage's recent comments on  religion.    Joeseph Ward, the director of the  Episcopal LGBT group  Believe Out Loud,  penned  a recent Op-Ed in the Advocate Magazine.  Where he  opines  on and on about just how unqualified  Dan Savage is to talk about the Bible, because  he (Savage) is not a  "theologian".    Ward writes;

"Dan Savage is a self-professed atheist and sex columnist. So when he’s asked to talk about these issues, I truly hope organizers and pundits know what they are getting — an intelligent gay rights activist and journalist, not a theologian. He can be a highly offensive person, but in no way, shape, or form is he trained to speak in depth about religious doctrine."

Sigh... I am sure Joeseph Ward means well, but you know what? In this case, he is completely wrong. Dan Savage is not talking about faith, or theology here. He is talking about how the words and actions coming out of a Religious Organization, have a real impact on how members of that organization view, and treat LGBT people.

Joespeh Ward's biggest problem  with Dan Savage seems to be more of a turf issue. Ward feels Dan Savage isn't "trained" to speak about the bible or doctrine. Not to beat up on Believe Out Loud, but compared to Savage's It Get's Better Project I have to ask; "what have you done to combat the near constant attack on LGBT people by conservative religious organizations?" In comparison? Not much.

As well intentioned as Ward's critique may have been,  he  is completely missing the point.    To highlight the  hypocrisy and bigotry of a church is not attacking the faith of that church. To point out how saying from the pulpit, that Gays and Lesbians are a threat the to very existence of the human race,  has a direct effect on how people who hear those words, then go and treat Gays and Lesbians, is not a Theological argument. It is a simple statement of human cause and effect.

Dan Savage is completely correct in his criticisms of right wing organised religions, and their war on Gay people. Be it by former member of the Hitler Youth claiming that one group of people are a threat to humanity, or be it the Mormon Church in America,  hiding behind it's tax exempt status to fund anti-gay public policy.   It is nothing less than a direct  attack on the human dignity and worth of millions of people, and should never be allowed to go unchallenged.

To point out how words and actions of religious groups have led directly to the dehumanization of, discrimination against, and even the bullying to death of, LGBT people is something Dan Savage is very qualified to do, and should continue doing.  To say the 8 verses of scripture that are used to justify hatred of Gays and Lesbians is "bullshit" is NOT an attack on Christianity. It is a valid response to human bigotry.

There comes a point where LGBT people run out of other cheeks to turn. I for one am very glad to see that Dan Savage is not afraid to strike back.

The Glass Jawed Hypocrisy of Right Wing Bigots

While I have been on the road in the Middle East,  there has been some interesting developments back in the United States.

The  Social Conservatives on America's  political right wing,  are collectively going  berserk over the idea that their blatant hypocrisy has been called out  for exactly  what it is.

I have blogged extensively in the past about the horrific attempts by  right wing nut job  hate groups like the  "Family Research Council"  and  the  "National Organization for Marriage"  to block any programs designed  to address  the bullying to death of  LGBT youth in  Schools.

The reaction on the wing nut right  to  programs like Dan Savage's  It Gets Better Project, has been as predictable as it has been  vile .   To these hate mongers,  they see the bulling to death of  gay kids as their right.  As  protected  freedom of religious  expression. When LGBT people dare to  fight back,  well..  THAT is  the true bullying. That is  oppressing their religious freedom.

The latest round of  faux  outrage  from the American Taliban, stems from a speech by the aforementioned  Seattle based syndicated columnist and Anti-bullying activist,  Dan Savage.   Savage, speaking at a Student Journalism Conference in Seattle,  addressed the core reason many on the Conservative Evangelical right wing use  to justify their near constant attacks on LGBT people.  "The Bible says so..." argument.



When Savage began pointing out the  sheer hypocrisy of that position,  a group of  "Christian Student Journalists", (right on cue),  got up, walked out and ran straight in the arms of the Family Research Council to claim that  big bad Dan Savage had bullied  them.  Waaaaaaahhh!   Within hours, the WingNutosphere went into gleeful overdrive claiming  that meanie Dan Savage was attacking religion!

Shortly after,  Dan Savage  apologized for his choice of words, and for calling the walk out by the students during his speech  "pansy-assed".  But rightfully stuck to his guns on  his core point.
----------------------------------------------------------
On "Bullshit" and "Pansy-Assed"

posted by DAN SAVAGE on SUN, APR 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that Dan Savage is not the first to point this out. My favorite (and much missed),  television show The West Wing, tackled this same issue in a scene where a Conservative radio talk show host, clearly based on right wing talk show host "Dr." Laura Schlessinger , gets taken to task by President Bartlett, played by  Martin Sheen.

The anti-gay wing nuts have gone on to demand that President Obama denounce Dan Savage for his "bullying" of Christians.   So  once again we get  the ridiculous fiction from the American Taliban,  that  standing up and saying it is blatant hypocrisy  to selectively use the bible to justify at the very least, bigotry and discrimination,   and in so many cases, the bullying to  death of  LGBT Americans,  that  is  somehow attacking their freedom of religion.     

Dan Savage may have felt that it was a step to far to describe the walk out by those who were upset by his comments "pansy assed", and to call selective biblical interpretation "bull shit", but I disagree. 

Dan Savage has nothing to apologize for.   

Brian Brown, the  gay sex obsessed spokesnut  for the  hate group the "National Organization for Marriage" has decided he is going to ride the victim train  as far as he can on this one, and has challenged Dan Savage to a debate on this topic.   Savage was lightning fast in  his acceptance of  Brown's "challenge".   

Pop the popcorn kids,  this should be good.  Brown is all talk when he goes on Fox News, or  when he is swinging at  Wolf Blitzer's  "I guess we have to leave it there",  softball questions over on CNN.   I look forward to seeing how he deals with  the reality  of  his own words and actions  being held up for what they truly are.  Un-American,  anti-constitutional , theocratic fascism that would make the Taliban proud.

Thoughts on Dubai...

Well I am back from Dubai.   I was there for a week on  a business trip.   First  I have to say  that  Dubai is  frankly,  completely ridiculous.  It's like  Las Vegas and  Disney's  "Aladdin"  had a child.    The over-the top "look how much money we have"  nature of the place  just becomes  funny after a couple days there.

Yet underneath all the  BMW SUV's and  5 Star hotels, each one more  opulent  than the last one, there  lurked  a dark reality.  In the  late 90's and early  2000's expatriates  came to Dubai in droves  with the promise of a tax-free living,  and  a booming  real estate market  fuelled  by the  United Arab Emirates  oil wealth.   But  when the  global economy  took a nosedive  in  2008,  reality hit the Dubai expats, and  hit them hard.   The biggest example of this happened the week I was there, with a massive  auction of  cars and  SUV's  that  had been left abandoned  that the Dubai Airport.   It turns out,  the auction is something of a regular  event there in Dubai.
 (Hat tip to the Sunday Times)

---------------------------------------------------
Dubai expats abandon cars at airport car park

The Times, UK, Dubai -- For many expatriate workers in Dubai it was the ultimate symbol of their tax-free wealth: a luxurious car that few could have afforded on the money they earned at home. Now, faced with crippling debts as a result of their high living and Dubai's fading fortunes, many expatriates are abandoning their cars at the airport and fleeing home rather than risk jail for defaulting on loans.

Police have found more than 3,000 cars outside Dubai's international airport in recent months. Most of the cars – four-wheel drives, saloons and "a few" Mercedes – had keys left in the ignition. Some had used-to-the-limit credit cards in the glove box. Others had notes of apology attached to the windscreen. When the real estate market collapsed and the emirate's once-booming economy started to slow down, many expatriates were left owning several homes and unable to pay the mortgages without credit.

Under Sharia Law, which prevails in Dubai, the punishment for defaulting on a debt is severe. Bouncing a check, for example, is punishable with jail. Those who flee the emirate are known as skips. The abandoned cars underscore a worrying trend. Five years ago the Emir, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, embarked on an ambitious plan to transform Dubai into a hub for business and tourism. A building boom fuelled double-digit growth, with thousands of Westerners arriving every day, eager to cash in on the emirate's promise of easy living and wealth.

There are increasing signs that the foreigners who once flocked to Dubai are leaving. "There is no way of tracking actual numbers, but the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Dubai is emptying out," said a Western diplomat.

Most of the emirate's banks are not affiliated with British financial institutions, so those who flee do not have to worry about creditors. Their abandoned cars are eventually sold off by the banks at weekly auctions. Those recently advertised include BMWs, Porsches and Mercedes. Police have issued warrants against owners of the deserted cars. Those who return risk arrest at the airport.
---------------------------------------------------------

Still even in this down economy Dubai puts on one heck of a show. The center piece being the world's tallest building, the burj khalifa. Standing at half a mile high. It simply boggles the mind to look at it. But if that wasn't enough. At the base is a massive water fountain display like the one outside the Belagio casino in Las Vegas, only twice the size (of course).

When I remarked to my cab driver from the Airport to my hotel, that having the world's tallest building in your city must create some unique security concerns, he smiled and took great pride in pointing out that the Burj Khalifa was in no danger of being a target for terrorist attack.  When I asked why that was so,  he replied simply that the very top floor of the tower contained a Mosque.

Looking at the skyline of Dubai, you can'thelp but think of the cityscapes from science fiction films.

 It's almost like someone in Dubai saw an Anime movie set in the distant future , and said "let's build THAT!" And then they did.   Not only that, but  once they started  they just couldn't help them selves and just kept  building.  The buildings have no architectural theme, and there appears to be no urban planning that went into the placement. The focus was to put as many skyscrapers up as they could, wherever they felt like it. The resulting skyline is mind-bogglingly impressive to look at, but feels "fake". It seems more like a CGI background shot from a Star Wars prequel than a place people actually live.

Still it was an amazing experience. The view in the video below  is from the bar atop the WAFI pyramid hotel., Where I, along with my  two co-workers, Gary and Neil,  spent our last evening in Dubai admiring the view. We all agreed, that if you are looking to visit an amazing place that you would never in a million years consider living in. Dubai should definitely be on your list.

Greetings from Dubai

Sorry the blog has been kinda quiet,  I am in the United Arab Emirates  this week for work.  Dubai is both  fascinating  and  ridiculous  at the same time,    I will  blog  more  about the trip  later this week.

How to Annoy A Republican...

Simply tell the truth..

Because reality and facts apparently have a  "Liberal Bias".

Granted, I am not happy with a lot of things that  President Obama has, (or more accurately , has not),  done.  But to think that  Mitt "Corporations are People" Romney is even remotely a viable alternative,  is nothing less than delusional.

Happy Birthday Gorgeous....

(hat tip to Joemygod)

Barbara Streisand  turns 70 years young today...



She had her first hit record only  48 years ago...   Which someday will certainly prompt the question ;  "Lady Ga-who?"

Child Celebrities Opposing Kirk Cameron

Sometimes I think the  folks over at  "Funny or Die" should be running the world...

CCOKC - Child Celebrities Opposing Kirk Cameron - watch more funny videos      

Brilliant...

Thoughts from the Next Generation of Christians...

21 year-old Matthew Vines speaks on the theological debate regarding the Bible and the role of gay Christians in the church. Delivered at College Hill United Methodist Church in Wichita, Kansas on March 8, 2012. 

(hat tip to  Andrew Sullivan)

Transcript :http://matthewvines.tumblr.com.

Republican Party Philosophy Explained...

SFGMC - "Testimony"

Wow...  Just watch.



TESTIMONY - Music by Stephen Schwartz
Lyrics taken from and inspired by the It Gets Better Project
http://bit.ly/Testimonysong

In writing TESTIMONY, Stephen Schwartz collaborated with Dan Savage, creator of the groundbreaking "It Gets Better Project." Schwartz has set the heartfelt words from the "It Gets Better" videos to music, weaving them into a breathtaking, emotional new masterpiece that speaks to anyone who has ever felt out of place.

TESTIMONY was recorded and engineered by Leslie Ann Jones, the legendary multi Grammy award-winning Director of Music Recording at Skywalker Sound. Performed by the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus under the direction of Dr. Timothy Seelig.

DOWNLOAD THE SONG
http://www.sfgmc.org/store

ExPat Moments....

Being an American living overseas is  always  an interesting  experience.  Regardless of your political affiliations you find yourself having to defend  U.S. Policies, be they foreign , domestic, economic, or what have you   on a  regular basis.  This is most often due to  the fact that you are usually the only American in the room.  So by default you become the voice of America, whether you want to be or not.

This  past week however,   was one of those rare occasions where  I found myself  defending the  United Kingdom from disparaging comments from fellow American Expatriates.

Earlier in the week, Eric and  I found ourselves  at a pre-election kick off reception for  Democrats Abroad.  the event  was held at a well known American style restaurant  called  The Texas Embassy.  It was odd to be in a room full of so many Americans in the center of London.   Eric got a kick out of trying to place the different  American accents he was hearing.

For me,  it was nice to be in a room full of Americans who share most of my political beliefs.  We all  were  greatly amused by the complete circus  that the Republican Presidential Primary process has been.    Everyone  there was  fairly confident in the  re-electability  of President Obama, when put up against  any of the  potential  GOP nominees, and  the  desire to increase Democratic voter turn out among the  expat community clearly  is aimed at helping with the much less certain race to control Congress  in  2013.

Yet I will be honest,  it was hard to  get  excited about  the whole thing.   It was hard to tell, but  from where we were sitting,  it appeared  that  Eric and I were the only same-sex couple there.  The upside to that was a number of people, including the  chairman of the UK chapter of  Democrats abroad, were  very deliberate in coming up to us,  welcoming us to the event,  and making it clear they were very happy to see us there.  

Yet  as the  speeches  started, touting the  successes of the  Obama-Biden first term,  I couldn't help feeling a little bit annoyed.   I have written  at length about my disappointment  with  President Obama, on the issue of the  Defence of Marriage Act,  and all the related issues connected to that.   Mainly, in our case,  the  right  to sponsor a legal spouse for  immigration  to the United States.   A bill was  introduced in  2009 that would  correct this injustice, but  since  its introduction, the bill has gone nowhere.



Yes  President Obama has worked wonders pulling   America out of  deep dank hole that  8 years of Republican rule had dug.  Yet  for couples like us,  the key issues that impact our lives  have remain largely untouched.   When  pressed on the issue of Marriage Equality,  the best answer the   first  African American President of the United States can come back with,  is  how he "struggles" with the issue and that his  position is still  "evolving", and then goes on to say his baseline position  basically amounts to the same  "separate but equal" argument that was used to support racial segregation 50 years ago.



Meanwhile,  here in the United Kingdom,  the  Conservative  Prime Minister,  David Cameron speaking at his party's annual  conference.  (The British equivalent of the  American GOP National Convention, ) had this to say on the subject of  Marriage Equality here in the UK.



Which brings us to  last night.   Eric and I had the  great good fortune to spend the evening with some of our  most amazing friends.    Our friends Peter and Simon  who live quite close to us here in London, ( but we don't see nearly enough of,)   had us over for dinner at their flat.  Also with us, was  our dear friend Daniel from New York, who was visiting us for the weekend, on his way home from a business trip in Paris.

Also there,  were Mike and Mark,  two friends of  Peter and Simon.    Who like us,  are a bi-national same sex couple,  where one partner is British, and the other American.  Who also like Eric and myself,   moved to the UK to be together, rather than stay in a long-distance relationship waiting for DOMA to be repealed.   Where we did our civil partnership here in  London, then applied for a spousal visa,  they were married in Massachusetts, which was then recognized by the  British government for immigration purposes.

The American half of this couple is an interesting fellow.  Originally from Boston,  he has lived here in the UK about a year longer than I have. From all appearances, he and his husband have a pretty good life.   Good careers, great friends and the civil equality that living in the UK affords to couples like them, and like us.   Yet  he had almost nothing good to say about life in the United Kingdom.

No matter the topic of conversation,  in his opinion, everything  here is pretty much inferior  when compared to the United States.   As the evening   went on, seated next to this person at dinner,  I  found myself aggressively  defending   my  adopted country from  the mostly  inaccurate aspersions from a countryman  from my homeland.

Yes,  there are significant  differences  between life in the US and life in the UK.  Yes, there are many things here I find  odd,  frustrating, and even down right ridiculous at times.  But when all is said and done,  in both our cases,  the United States essentially told us that  our marriages didn't  count,  didn't even exist as far as the federal government was concerned.  The United States,  tells thousands of American citizens just like the two us,  that  we are  something less than  equal, and if we want to spend our lives with our spouses, we  have to do it some place  else.



That some place else is,  in both our cases  the United Kingdom.  This  quirky, imperfect,  cramped, damp, foggy island in the North Atlantic  has proven to be more free than the country that claims to be  "the land of the free".  Yes America has better food,  but  England has  better laws.   Yes Hollywood makes  better  movies, but  London  has much better theatre.   Yes America gave the world Star Trek, but  England  gave it Doctor Who.  Yes, I may have left part of my heart in San Francisco,  but  it was London, not "liberal SF" , that said;   "Welcome!   You  have the SAME right to live with  the  person you love,  as anyone else does.  Make yourself at home." 



Yet  as the evening  went on,  I realized at least to some degree,  why my new friend felt as he did.  It really has nothing to do living  in the United Kingdom, but instead, has everything to do with the  inability to live in the United States.   As a fellow  "DOMA Exile",  I too struggle  with  feelings of  bitterness at  not even having had the option to live in my own country with my spouse.  As President Obama likes to say;  "Let me be clear."    I love London, but I did not choose to live here.  The bigotry and inequality of  the laws in the United States made that choice for me.

So, if it sounds like I prefer the UK to the US, you would be wrong. I am an American. I have no desire to be a citizen of any other nation on Earth. The sight of the American Flag fluttering in the breeze over Grosvenor Square, gives me a tug at the heartstrings every time I see it.

Yet the hard truth is, it is England that has said I should never have to choose between the Person I'm married to, and the country I live in. My own country is quite willing to force me, and thousands of my fellow Americans to make that exact choice.

So  say what you want about tube strikes, and  baked beans on toast for breakfast.  The fact remains  that  until  United States grows up and stops using minority rights as a political football,  it is  England,  that is living the ideals of  Liberty and Justice for All,   that  America (for now),  still only talks about.

Why Truth Scares Bigots....

(via afer.org)  Last night was the West Coast premier of  "8"  Featuring an all-star cast including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon and others, "8" is a play written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and directed by acclaimed actor and director Rob Reiner. 

It is a powerful account of the case filed by the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER ) in the U.S. District Court in 2010 to overturn Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. Framed around the trial's historic closing arguments in June 2010, "8" provides an intimate look what unfolded when the issue of same-sex marriage was on trial.

----------------------------------------------------------

We stayed up  until  3:30am London time to watch the live stream on You Tube.   The closing  arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger  may seem an odd subject for a play.  Yet the reasons  behind the production are  important..  Opponents of  Marriage Equality in California  fought  tooth and nail to prevent video of the trial from becoming public.   Their stated argument was they wanted to  protect their witnesses  from "harassment" by  Gay activists.   

After I read the transcripts,  It  became very clear why the  defendants in the case  didn't what the video of their testimony viewed by the public. All the arguments made in ridiculous  TV ads, flyers ,and  softball  "interviews" on  Fox News, may have made for  great  campaign rhetoric, but  none of it could stand up to even most basic standards of evidence.  

The argument  that  allowing same sex couples the same basic civil rights as everyone else would somehow "damage and redefine" marriage, completely fell apart when faced with actual cross examination under oath. The brilliant  David Boies, attorney for the  plaintiffs  summed it up perfectly when he said; "the witness stand is a lonely place to lie."

The defendant's  arguments  basically boiled down to a couple of points.  The first, was that  allowing  Gays and Lesbians to marry would  "redefine" and therefore weaken and irrevocably  damage the  institution of Marriage.  So if we take that  argument seriously, to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples, not more rights, not any new rights that straight couples do not currently have, but only the exact same rights, would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages.

Okay... , there is really only one question then. How? Would gay marriage mean that straight couples would lose any of the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that they currently have?  Would legal gay marriage mean straight couples couldn't file joint  tax returns, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social  security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each  other? Would the legalization of marriage for gays and lesbians mean that straight people could no longer marry and those who were  married had to get divorced? Would the marriages  of  any heterosexual change in any way?

The answer of course is no.  When faced with the reality of that, admitted even by their own star witness, they fell back on the second argument.   Society has a compelling interest to step in and prevent  same sex couples from getting married.  The "reason" for this  being,  same sex marriage somehow would result in  fewer children being born  and growing up in heterosexual two-parent households.

Uh... what??   If you have having trouble figuring that one out, don't feel too bad.  Turns out the defendants in the case couldn't offer any proof either, so  like the whole,  "Gays will destroy marriage" argument,  the  idea that Marriage Equality will end straight  procreation as we know it,  fell apart with an equally loud and absurd thud. 

So why  are  people like  Maggie Gallagher,  Tony Perkins,  James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their assorted ilk, so hell-bent (pun intended) on taking civil rights away from Gays and and Lesbians?  Conservative evangelicals say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of  marriage in the eyes of society. But since none of the marriage rights or benefits that straight couples have would change if gays were able to marry, what opponents of gay marriage are really saying is that letting gay couples marry cheapens their straight marriages in their eyes. 

Letting gays and lesbians get married would mean they would  have a right that only heterosexuals previously   had. And that makes them mad. It's not just that Gallagher and those like her want to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, they want make sure that gays and lesbians have as few rights as possible, if any at all. They see equal rights for everyone as an attack on them.

That's interesting. Even though  the institution of marriage clearly would not change in ANY way, the defendants in the Perry case,  firmly believe that marriage would lose value, status and might even come to an end, if gay couples were able to marry. It suddenly occurred to me there is a word for someone who is irrationally fixed on the artificial preservation of inequality that they feel is in their favor. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.

Bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

The testimony of in the Prop 8 trial, shows  vividly what  opponents of Marriage Equality really want . This small group of even smaller minds, who out of fear of losing what they feel is their superiority, want to put the civil rights of people they don't  like up to popular vote.   The Perry case put hatred and bigotry on trial, and  hatred and bigotry lost.  The bigots will appeal and appeal and stall and  block.  Yet  is only a matter of time.  

This case will eventually get to the supreme court.  Like Loving v. Virginia,  like  Lawrence v. Texas,   and yes like Brown v. Board of Education , it will be the US Supreme Court that  will be asked to  stand up for the equal protection under the law of all Americans.     

Amazing video of San Francsico

(hat tip to the Huffington Post)
Seriously cool video taken from a remote control model helicopter.   I'm not homesick.. really...  (sigh...)


Weekend in SF from robert mcintosh on Vimeo.

Remembering Steve Walker

(hat tip to Xtra)
Canadian-born painter Steve Walker died at his home in Costa Rica on Jan 4, 2012. He was 50.  Walker was a self-taught artist who began painting after an inspirational trip to Europe when he was 25.   For his subjects, he chose to paint gay men, depicting the struggles and joys the gay community lived through in his lifetime, from the ongoing struggle for sexual liberation to the devastation wrought by HIV and AIDS. But he believed his subjects were universal, touching on themes of love, hate, pain, joy, beauty, loneliness, attraction, hope, despair, life and death.

"As a homosexual, I have been moved, educated and inspired by works that deal with a heterosexual context. Why would I assume that a heterosexual would be incapable of appreciating work that speaks to common themes in life, as seen through my eyes as a gay man? If the heterosexual population is unable to do this, then the loss is theirs, not mine,” Walker once said.

Walker was always grateful for the support he received from the gay community for his work. In recent years, his work has been exhibited in galleries in Toronto, Montreal, Los Angeles, Fort Lauderdale, Key West and Provincetown.   "Any minority wants and needs to find artistic voices that reflect their own personal situations, and, in doing so, validate and record their lives and cultures for themselves and for the larger world," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I can't say I knew Steve. But I am very proud to say we were acquaintances.  I had the great good fortune to have met him three times. Always in Chicago. He would come and sign prints of his work at the North Halsted Market Days street festival on Chicago's Northside. I have one of those signed prints. It is his work entitled "Telling Him."

Like many people, during my own coming out process as a young Gay man, I found inspiration in Steve's work. In a way his work was the first "It Gets Better" message  I ever saw.  His depictions of Gay men just living their lives. Lives depicted with all the ups, downs and events that every life has. It was the first time I ever saw artwork that depicted that for people like... well... for people like me.

For Steve, like for so many Gays and Lesbians, coming to terms with his sexuality was an evolutionary process as opposed to a revelation—a not uncommon occurrence.

“I remember feeling a strange sense of elation upon having survived childhood, a rural environment, education, and the knowledge that my sexual orientation, (which was never a mystery or problem to me personally), would forever cause some people who never met me and would never know me, to hate me and others like me.” 

When I became involved in the San Francisco Pride Celebration I started using images of Steve's work in the promo videos we would show at volunteer trainings. When Eric and I were doing our long distance relationship, between San Francisco and  London, I created a video for a face book group of  bi-national same sex couples who were in the same situation. 

I posted a few of them on YouTube and was delighted to find out Steve saw them. This let to an exchange of emails over the next three years where he would share stories about the history of a particular painting that I had used in the videos.

With his passing, I am very grateful to have had the chance to tell him about the tremendous impact  his artwork had  on me.  Not just because it showed the commonalities of life and love that all people hope for. But because his work does so from an unapologetically Gay perspective.

Something that in a world overwhelmed with images of "Boy meets Girl", gave a young gay man growing up in South Central Wisconsin, hope that the world had room in it for me too.  Where the story could be one where "Boy meets Boy".

A funeral will be held at Our Lady of the Visitation Parish (5338 Bank St) in Ottawa on Feb 25 at 11am. It is anticipated that a memorial celebrating the life of Walker will be held in Toronto at a date still to be determined.

25 Years Ago...

Back in June of 1987, I visited Berlin for the first time.  Standing in  front of the Wall  at  Brandenburg Gate, I  listened to President Ronald Reagan say "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"  

I remember at the time  thinking,  that was a nice sentiment, but never in my lifetime would I know what it was like to walk through Brandenburg Gate.   I have travelled to Berlin a couple of times since then, most recently in 1989, when the wall fell.  But I had yet to visit Berlin as a truly unified city.

Today... nearly twenty five years after that first visit,  I returned to Berlin, and  walked through that gate.

Proof, if there ever was,  that nothing is impossible.

More Seriously Cool Footage from the ISS

Recent solar flare activity has resulted in spectacular  Northern Lights  this year.  Now thanks to  NASA  we all get to see what it looks like from above.  Amazing video from the International Space Station  (ISS)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

and more...

Today's 9th Circuit Court Decision on CA Prop 8.

Here is the full court decision upholding the original decision that ruled  California's  Proposition 8, (the ban of same sex marriage) to be unconstitutional

Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision

So what does this mean exactly?  Is same sex marriage now legal (again...) in  California?   Well, no.  Or more accurately , not yet.   There is still a Stay of the ruling in place  pending an appeal by  the proponents of Prop 8.  That means same sex marriages  cannot yet  resume in California.   This decision also, only applies to  Proposition 8 in California, and has no effect on laws in any other state or on any federal laws  (i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act).

So yes,  today's court ruling is  good news. But  nothing has actually changed  yet as a result of it.

There is a lot to take in when you read the actual text of the  2-1 court ruling but  here is  a passage that stands out:

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

So just  to be clear,   the 9th Circuit Appeals Court today ruled that Prop 8 served no other purpose than to discriminate against Gays and Lesbians. This is significant,  in so much that it highlights the weakness of the one dissenting opinion in the 2-1 ruling.   The voice of dissent belongs to Judge N. Randy Smith.  Smith is a former head of the Idaho Republican Party, and was the lone vote in favor to uphold Prop 8.

Smith,  in his dissenting opinion could only raise the completely unrelated issue of parenting. Suggesting that if Gays and Lesbians can get married,  it somehow would mean fewer children would have Parents.. uh... huh?   How does that work exactly? (Smith didn't offer any explanation.)   It is also interesting to note that  Smith is also a Mormon.

Why is that relevant?  The opponents of Marriage Equality claimed that  the original 2009 ruling by   Judge Vaughn R. Walker  was invalid because Walker was Gay.   It is interesting to note  the plaintiffs in this case made no such similar  accusations against Smith, even though  The  Mormon Church was the single largest backer of Proposition 8.

So what happens next? That's a good question. The proponents of Prop 8 will undoubtedly appeal, so  they could go one of two ways. They could make a motion for rehearing in front of the broader Ninth Circuit (11 judges). If a majority of the circuit judges agree to rehear the case, the case would stay at this appellate level and go through  same process all over again in front of a larger panel. Or the Proponents could skip that step and decide to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime we can all enjoy the reaction on the  WingNut Bigoted Right as the American Taliban has pretty much lost their minds over today's ruling.  Shrieking hysterically about  "Activist Judges".  Everyone's favorite white supremacist nutcase,  Tony Perkins.  Head of the ridiculously  mis-named hate group  the "Family Research Council" pretty much soiled his adult diaper riding the  Waaaa-mbulance with rage after today's decision.

"This ruling substitutes judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.   


Yeah, because we have always allowed people to vote on the civil rights of other Americans.... right?




If the United States Supreme Court were to uphold the original Walker ruling, then like in the case of  Lawrence v. Texas,  suddenly ALL bans on same sex marriage across the United States would be unconstitutional.   This would also overturn the Defence of Marriage Act. (DOMA).  The  federal law banning recognition of same sex marriages.

That my friends,  is the endgame.    So while today's ruling is nice,  it is still only one more step on a very long road.  Albeit, a step in the right direction.

Best Super Bowl Commercial EVER....

Welcome to Anoka MN....Now go Kill Yourself.

I will confess to  living, to a certain extent in a bubble.   London is a wonderfully diverse, cosmopolitan and progressive  city.    Before moving here I of course,  lived  in San Francisco.  Which is  largely its own planet, much to the pride and delight of residents there.   Prior to SF I lived on the North Side  of Chicago, the liberal bastion  of  Lakeview  (aka 'Boystown').   On top of that  I grew up in Madison, Wisconsin.  Hardly  a conservative enclave by any means.

So it's easy to forget  how  insane  some places are.  Places like  Anoka, Minnesota.

I have blogged in the past  about the epidemic of  teen deaths in  Anoka. How  in a space of less than two years nine young people  at  Anoka middle and high school were  bullied to death.  All because they were either Gay or Lesbian, or  were perceived to be Lesbian or Gay.    And the good  Christian conservatives response to  this epidemic of suicides?   Blame the victims, and  do everything they can to prevent  ANY effort to  address the real cause or issues that  drove nine young people in their town to end their own lives. MSNBC  profiled the issue, back last Fall



The current  issue of  Rolling Stone Magazine  takes a clear,  brutally honest look at  Anoka, and how the intolerance of  one town is killing their own kids.   The article is very hard to read, but I encourage everyone to try to get through it. 

The Anoka-Hennepin County  School District,  is  in the Congressional district of none other than GOP/Tebagger bigoted whackjob  Michelle Bachmann.  When she was a Minnesota State Senator, Bachmann vigorously  opposed  anti-bullying programs.  Citing her concerns that telling kids they shouldn't terrorize and torment classmates who they think might be Gay or Lesbian, telling them they should just go kill themselves,  is somehow a violation of the right to free speech.  (Hat tip to  the Huffington Post)   

Bachmann said, "I think for all us our experience in public schools is there have always been bullies, always have been always will be," according to a recording posted by the Dump Bachmann blog.  

"Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression? Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be, will we be expecting boys to be girls?" She asks. "I just don't know how we can realistically expect a zero tolerance of bullying behavior."

Yeah,  because  to expect educators to make school a safe space for all  kids,  is just so irrational right?    On his program "The Last Word" , Lawrence O'Donnell highlighted  the issue.



The article in Rolling Stone explores how hate groups like the  insanely mis-named "Minnesota Family Council" have mobilized  full force to defend what they believe is their right to  bully LGBT kids to death.

It is people like the Minnesota Family Council, who have smiled approvingly as the climate they created resulted in the bullying of   nine young people to death, and then  claim any effort to stop them from killing even more, is somehow a violation of their rights,  who truly make me hope that  atheists are wrong,  and there really is a Hell.   Because,  I dearly want  the bigots and bullies of Anoka,  Minnesota  to spend eternity there.

My Country Tis of ..... Who?

I just returned  to London from a two week business trip back to the  United States.  I was in  New York,  Los Angeles  and then  took a couple days off and went up to San Francisco  to see  friends and family.  It was  an interesting trip.

New York was great,  my company's offices are  in Lower Manhattan, right near Wall Street.    Also  the trip was even more special because it was Eric's and my first wedding anniversary.  His present was I got him a ticket to fly over and spend the week with me .   So  when I wasn't working we got to explore New York, and  hangout with our  dear friends Daniel and Gerardo.

It was during our week in NYC  President Obama gave his State of the Union Address.   Many people applauded  progressive vim and verve in the speech.  I found myself thinking... "okay, sounds great but where have you been for the past  3 years?".    I obviously will vote for  President Obama come November, but  I am still not  excited about it.  After watching  the seemingly endless string of  GOP Presidential debates. it is now even more clear that  the 2012 Presidential election will essentially be  a choice between an marginally effective democratic President, and whichever bat sh*t crazy  Republican survives the circular firing squad that is this years' primary process.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So we have a GOP contest essentially between Mitt Romney  and Newt Gingrich?  Seriously??  It's like the  Republican Party has  decided to double down on  their quest for total irrelevance.   The good news is,  either one is a losing proposition for the  GOP.  The  wingnutty base will never support Mitt "the Mormon", who  once boasted he was more pro-LGBT rights than Ted Kennedy.



As far as Newt "Swingrich" goes, (his three wives,  affinity for adultery and open marriages aside..)  it is safe to say that Newt  is just wayyyyy too crazy  for  vast majority of  Americans.    So  I think President Obama can safely  keep  the moving boxes stored away for another four years.  Yet the question is not who will be President  come January 20th, 2013, but rather who will control Congress.

After NYC  it was on to  Los Angeles for  more meetings for work, and some warmer California  weather.  I will admit it was nice to be back in the U.S. for a while  It's always nice  to  be able to drive on the  right side of the road in a car with the steering wheel on the left side of the driver's seat.   I will confess that I have never really cared for L.A., but   this time  I actually found myself  not minding the gridlock on the  405.

I guess it is a result of just missing  California.  This was even more evident when last weekend I took a couple days off, and  flew up to San Francisco.

It's  always  odd  the first time you return to  a city you used to live in , after moving away.   You feel like you live  there, but don't live there.   It's kind of  weird.   I wandered  down  past my old apartment building  in the SOMA (South of Market)  neighbourhood. of  San Francisco.  Standing outside, it  felt like  I had just forgotten my keys and was locked out of my own flat.

Then you see somebody else's name on  your mailbox and it all kicks in... Oh yeah, I don't live here any more.

While in SF I had the great good fortune to get to see my friend  Rudy in his current run with  the Word For Word Theatre Company.   He is in  the play  "Food Stories", and as always,  was amazing in it.   I also was able to spend some time with my Sister, her husband and my   glorious, brilliant, and perfect (can you tell I'm a  proud uncle?), nieces and nephew.  For the most part it was nice just to spend time revisiting my old stomping grounds.  I even was able to poke my head in at my old offices at  Kaiser Permanente  in San Bruno, and in Oakland,  and catch up with some of  my former co-workers.

All of which,  I will confess had a bitter-sweet  feel to it.    Friends and co-workers here in London often ask me if I  "miss"  San Francisco.  That is a complicated question.  Obviously there are  lots of things  and people I miss.  My friends, my family, and  the weather. (It is a balmy 28 degrees Fahrenheit here in  London today.)  But the question implies  that if I say  "yes"  I  miss SF, it means I  somehow regret moving here,  and if I say "no"  then  it feels like I am trivializing the people and things I left behind.  

Obviously  I don't for one minute  regret the decisions  that  resulted in my moving here, and  if  time were turned back,  I would  make the exact same decisions again, without a moments hesitation.  What  I do regret is the fact that  Eric and I  didn't  really have a choice..  Moving to London was the only way we could be together.  Living together in the United States was not even an option for us.    Not because of money, or distance. But simply because of bigotry and stupidity.  

The United States Government, which I support with my taxes,  forced me to move,   and yes,  that fact still makes me angry.

Well meaning friends,  for whom the reality of  DOMA ( the ridiculously mis-named "Defense of  Marriage Act"),  doesn't apply;  will often  say;   "Nobody forced you move Dave.  You could always have just stayed here."    The  sheer idiocy of  that statement  is  mind-boggling.   Of course I could have stayed in the U.S., but  without the person I am married to.   It is hard for these people to imagine  having to  choose between your Spouse and your Country.   Yet  that is exactly the choice thousands of bi-national same sex couples are forced to make every day.



How would you feel if, in  order to even be with, let alone marry the person you love, you had to move overseas.  All for no other reason, than the basic legal protections other married couples enjoy, we are denied, because the Republican Party needs to keep Gay and Lesbian Americans as the one group they can still legally hate, and discriminate against.

London is a fantastic city, and  I am  fortunate to have a great job,  and  Eric and I have wonderful friends and family here.  So what is the problem?   The fact  we didn't have a choice.  The basic rights given to other tax-paying Americans  to have the option to live together and build a life in the United States  we were denied, for no other reason than  bigotry and discrimination codified into law by DOMA.