tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-170821732024-03-05T18:41:01.737-06:00Rants from the SoapboxScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-81690560562710692532011-03-02T10:53:00.003-06:002011-03-02T11:00:45.352-06:00First Amendment RightsToday, in a not so stunning move, the United States Supreme Court ruled (8-1) that the Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka, KS) is within it's First Amendment rights to protest military funerals and carry signs saying <em>Death to Faggots</em>, and whatnot.<br /><br />First - I agree it's within their First Amendment rights. I don't agree with their protest, but, the First Amendment is there for a reason.<br /><br />Second - My personal theory: I think it's within the First Amendment rights of GLBT to gather outside the Westboro Church every time they have a service and protest the church. Make some noise, do a little dance, and denounce their bigoted beliefs.<br /><br />Yes, a bit extreme, but . . . shouldn't GLBT have the same rights to protest bigoted opinions? Of course, we should.<br /><br />I understand that religious beliefs often conflict with justice and equality. I understand that many churches like to take the Bible out of context to justify their - allegedly - narrow minded, bigoted beliefs that would deny equality to all humans, and reinforce their own superiority (alleged, btw) complexes.<br /><br />There's an old saying <em>what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.</em> So, I think us <em>ganders </em>(GLBT) need to take a page from the Westboro Baptist Church . . . and start protesting outside their church at every single service. I think the signs for the protest should be simple like . . .<br /><br /><em>Equality for All</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Down with Hate, Up with Love</em> - okay, obviously creating signs isn't my strong suit. That one made me laugh.<br /><br />In the end, the way forward is often an uphill struggle, with more steps back then forwards. Yes, a bigoted Church has the right to protest military funerals and proclaim deaths to gays. But, more open-minded individuals have the same right to protest such intolerance.<br /><br />Just saying . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-77063241479850038312010-11-04T15:48:00.005-05:002010-11-04T16:08:16.362-05:00The Republican AgendaWhy are Republicans hellbent on the following: keeping the country in a recession, keeping unemployment rising, and causing more individuals to lose their homes?<br /><br />Today, in a show of defiance - more like petulance - Senator Mitch McConnell proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Republicans care nothing for the well being of this country.<br /><br />Some of his comments . . .<br /><br />"If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction," McConnell said.<br /><br /><strong>This isn't about moving in your direction, Senator McConnell, it's about moving the country out of a recession, out of a growing unemployment rate, and out of people losing their homes because of legislation passed years ago that allowed the banks to go all willy-nilly with their loans . . . and knowing people couldn't afford to pay back those loans.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />"But we can't expect the president to sign it," he said. "So we'll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation, and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions."<br /><br /><strong>Oh, yes, let's put another Republican't in office so they can increase the deficit, give the wealthy tax breaks they don't need, while increasing taxes for everybody else. Yeah, that worked out well the first time, didn't it, Senator McConnell.</strong><br /><br />"By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood," he said. "And we gave voters a real choice on Election Day."<br /><br /><strong>You don't have a clue. The voters didn't make rationale choices on Election Day. You, others like you, corporations serving the alleged special interest of the Republican party, and so on put out false, misleading, taken out of context, and fear mongering political ads that played on the fears and desperation of the American people. You knew what you were doing. You knew people, motivated by fear, wouldn't vote with their conscience. You knew they would vote out of fear - which they did, in droves. This wasn't a fair election, Senator McConnell, and you know it and your brethren in the Party know it as well. </strong><br /><strong></strong><br />"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.<br /><br /><strong>Your focus shouldn't be on ousting the current President. Your concern, that of every Senator and Congressman, should be the well-being of this country - here/now. The rising unemployment should be your concern. The multitude of foreclosures should be your concern. The continued recession should be your concern. The sad fact is: you and the rest of the GOP doesn't care enough about this country, about its citizens, to make it your concern.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.<br /><br /><strong>Why would you want to cut spending and decrease the deficit? Why would you want to shrink government and make it more efficient? Oh, that's right, you obviously don't.</strong><br /><br />This blatant disregard for the citizens of the United States is not what this country needs right now. We're in the mess we are in because of Republicans and Democrats alike. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their sense of well being, all because the political parties cannot work together.<br /><br />Yet Senator McConnell, and other like minded Republicans, don't give a damn about this country. They're still pouting over the 2008 election. Get over it people. So John McCain and Sarah Palin didn't get elected. You are - allegedly - adults. Act like an adult. Quit acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get their way.<br /><br />The current attitude of the Republican Party, the current petulance, the current <em>I'm going to do everything I can to ensure this country doesn't recover from the recession</em> is, well, first grade playground stuff.<br /><br />If you're not adult enough to act responsibly, Senator McConnell, and every other politician currently in office, then resign and let someone more adult, more mature, more responsible, and more tuned in to the actual needs of the country do the job.<br /><br />I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />All quotes came from here:<br />http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20101104/US.Bipartisan.Challenge/Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-32893167406305316752010-11-03T10:20:00.003-05:002010-11-03T10:37:30.354-05:00Worse Rather Than Better<em>Our country has a history of political cycles/upheavals just like this one. My prediction: things won't change, the voters who voted out of anger and fear will realize their mistake, and the political climate will change again in 2 years. We are a country divided that seems unable to work together. Until we do start working together, things will get worse rather than better.</em><br /><br />I made the above comment on Facebook this morning.<br /><br />This past election - yeah, not even a day old yet, and it's <em>past</em> - was one of the more vitrolic I've seen over the course of the last few years. The negative campaigns were rampant . . . and yet still we elect these politicians who choose to outright lie in their ads and/or take things so out of context that the truth no longer exists.<br /><br />Here's what I predict: the recession won't end, unemployment will remain steady or rise, it will not decrease, and the voters who voted out of anger and fear (brought about in a fear mongering campaign by corporations and politicians alike) will wake up about a year from now, realize things are worse rather than better, and - hopefully - realize that they are responsible for the continued deterioration of this country.<br /><br />Yes, we as voters, are responsible for the state of this country because . . . we continually elect people into office who have no intent of following up on their campaign lies. No, they're not promises, they're lies, because every single politician out there knows that they have little, if any, intent of keeping the alleged promises (i.e., lies) they make to get elected. These politicians, especially the repeat offenders, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that our government isn't set up to honor the promises (i.e., lies) they tell to get elected.<br /><br />So, we, as voters, are responsible - not as responsible as those in power - for the state of our nation.<br /><br />The voters who elected George W. Bush into office, twice I might add, are paritally responsible for the current recession, rise in unemployment, and the foreclosure situation. Yes. You. Are!<br /><br />I am just as responsible, even though I didn't vote for him, because the politicians I did vote into office didn't fight hard enough to change things so that the recession we are currently in, the unemployment and foreclosure crisis, didn't happen.<br /><br />Now, please note, George W. and the Senate/House during his reign weren't the main culprits of the recession, that began before their time, but they pushed - in my opinion - us over the edge.<br /><br />There was no way in hell President Obama could fix the mess he inherited. No. Way. In. Hell. It wasn't possible, it isn't possible, and everybody out there knows that fact . . . they just aren't willing to admit that fact to themselves. Go figure.<br /><br />Look at it this way: an individual, in the folly of youth, incurs a great amount of credit card debt. Said individual decides to stop using credit cards and begin paying them off. In 98% of cases, this takes years and years.<br /><br />To fix the recession, the crisis at hand, is going to take years and years, and probably more than one Presidential administration.<br /><br />And yet . . . the members of the Republican't party, the members of the Tea Party, want to place all the blame on President Obama.<br /><br />The blame is wrongly placed. These people don't want to admit their own part in the current crisis.<br /><br />Sarah Palin - she with Presidential aspirations - has one agenda in mind: the White House. Her hit lists, her endorsement of Tea Party members, everything she says and does, isn't out of the goodness - at least in my opinion, and allegedly (ha) - heart. Her hit lists, her endorsement of Tea Party members - who, btw, didn't do so well - everything she says and does is out of her desire to become President of the United States of America.<br /><br />So, dear voters who don't bother to do a bit of research, check the facts, and realize that politicians and corporations will - allegedly - do and say anything to get into office. Next time you see a political ad, next time Sarah or any politician speaks, make sure to understand that you give them the power, you can put them into office, and you, if brave and intelligent enough, can weed through the political bullshit and affect change . . . by not electing those who prey on your fear and insecurities into office.<br /><br />And, dear voters who don't bother to do a bit of research and vote out of anger rather than reason, as things get worse rather than better, understand that you, in large part, are responsible for the deepening crisis this country is about to experience.<br /><br />Just saying . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-7505964083533143192010-10-01T11:42:00.002-05:002010-10-01T11:46:55.638-05:00Condoning Bullying<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/30/spaulding.rutgers.suicide/index.html?hpt=T2">http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/30/spaulding.rutgers.suicide/index.html?hpt=T2</a><br /><br />Unless you’re living under a rock, you know that Tyler Clementi committed suicide after his college roommate thought – I use that term loosely – it’d be a good idea to stream Tyler having sex with another man all over the Internet.<br /><br />In response to that incident, Pam Spaulding, founder of the political blog PamsHouseBlend.com, posted the above linked opinion piece on www.cnn.com.<br /><br />She brought up two important questions:<br /><br />• Who creates the bully?<br />• Who is accountable?<br /><br /><em>These behaviors start young, and whether they're manifested in homophobia, as they seem to be in this case, or in teasing others because of their faith, clothing, race or weight, we need to ask: <strong>Where do the parents and other influential adults in these bullies' lives fit in?</strong> </em><br /><br />So, childhood memories have been floating to the forefront of my brain these last few days as more and more stories of teen-agers/young adults committing suicide, because of bullying, have hit the airwaves.<br /><br />One memory in particular, but some backstory first . . .<br /><br />I grew up in a very large neighborhood. There were tons of kids in every age group from babies to college students. Huge neighborhood. Kids of a certain age hung out in groups.<br /><br />I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. Winter Wonderland.<br /><br />I remember one winter, not sure how old I was, snow forts in all the back yards, and a major snowball fight going on. One child – a friend, a schoolmate – was being picked on. Yes, even at a young age, a pecking order is established . . . and not in a good way. The kid finally had enough and went running home, crying. Everyone else followed, still tossing snowballs. Hey, it’s what kids do. I remember the kid’s mother saying “Don’t come running home for protection, never do that again, stand up for yourself.”<br /><br />Yes, we all need to stand up for ourselves. But . . . this is where bullying gets pushed to the side, where parents tell their kids to grow up, to get tough, and yet do nothing about the fact that a group of kids was tormenting – yes, with snowballs – a single kid, and, that a good portion of those kids were 2 – 3 years older than the kid being pelted with a multitude of snowballs.<br /><br />Yeah, in case you’re wondering, I was throwing snowballs too. It’s what we did.<br /><br />What we – meaning kids do – isn’t so important in this situation. It is what the parents failed to do: recognize the bullying attitude.<br /><br />You see, the snowballs from childhood turn into names: fatty, fatty, two-by-four, can’t fit through the kitchen door.<br /><br />The snowballs from childhood turn into hateful names: faggot, queer!<br /><br />The snowballs from childhood, if not stopped can – as the media this week has shown – turn into people feeling they have no where to run, nobody to turn to.<br /><br />The snowballs from childhood can lead to . . . suicide.<br /><br />We are a society geared toward not caring.<br /><br />We are a society that is responsible – every single one of us – for the death of Tyler Clementi and so many other kids.<br /><br />We as a society can no longer sit back and think oh, hey, it’s not my problem.<br /><br />Yes, it is my problem.<br /><br /><em>It's cold, this learned anti-social attitude towards being different and it has a striking impact on university campuses. </em><br /><br />This “learned anti-social attitude towards being different” must be stopped.<br /><br />People like the Assistant Attorney General of Minnesota shouldn’t – free speech or not – be able to have a blog that puts a swastika over a gay man’s head . . . and think the behavior is okay.<br /><br />People like religious leaders and politicians, while having every right to their opinions, shouldn’t be allowed – with their words and actions – to condone bullying on any level.<br /><br />The people in power, the people with money and media limelight continue to spew their hate forth – NOM anybody – and condone bullying.<br /><br />Those people, as well as the parents who do nothing, as well as every single individual who looks the other way . . . shouldn’t be allowed to condone bullying.<br /><br />How many people must die before people realize bullying is wrong?Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-36993931526502766002010-07-06T12:06:00.003-05:002010-07-06T12:21:55.305-05:00The Loss of Hope<em>I ask this... If there should be an assassination, I would hope that five, ten, one hundred, a thousand would rise. I would like to see every gay lawyer, every gay architect come out - - If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door... And that's all. I ask for the movement to continue. Because it's not about personal gain, not about ego, not about power... it's about the "us's" out there. Not only gays, but the Blacks, the Asians, the disabled, the seniors, the us's. Without hope, the us's give up - I know you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. So you, and you, and you... You gotta give em' hope... you gotta give em' hope.</em> - from the film <em>Milk</em> as spoken by Sean Penn portraying Harvey Milk.<br /><br />Frank and I watched <em>Milk</em> last night. It was a powerful and awe-inspiring movie that made me laugh, but more often, it made me cry. The ironic thing about the movie: the parallels between then (1978) and now (2010).<br /><br />I mean, seriously, what has changed? The gay community is still fighting, and losing, the same battles they fought 32 years ago! 32 years and society has barely moved forward at all!<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Why hasn't the gay movement moved forward? Why aren't gays (lesbians, bisexual, transgendered) allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Why is the battle for equality still going on?<br /><br />Did the life and death of Harvey Milk mean nothing to our community? Were his words just meaningless utterings?<br /><br />I don't have the answers to these questions. I only know that today (2010) the same battles are taking place.<br /><br />Yes, we've (the gay community) gained some ground, but not much, people, not much at all. Proposition 8 passed! Yeah, court battle, and all that jazz, but it passed! Where was the cohesive rallying that saw the defeat of Proposition 6 in 1978? Where was the united effort to win one battle when the gay community was losing so many battles across the United States?<br /><br />Yes, people came forth in defiance of Proposition 8, but . . . it wasn't enough. Why? What's changed within the framework of society that a community and its allies failed to defeat a measure that is born out of hatred and ignorance? Why did we fail to defeat the allegedly narrow-minded bigots who think their way of life is the only way to live?<br /><br />Again, I don't have the answers to these questions. I only know that the gay community and their allies need to galvanize their efforts to defeat any and all measures that strip us of the equal rights guaranteed us under the Constitution of the United States of America. We can no longer sit in our closets hoping somebody else will do the job for us.<br /><br /><em>I am here tonight to say that we will no longer sit quietly in the closet. We must fight. And not only in the Castro, not only in San Francisco, but everywhere the Anitas go. Anita Bryant did not win tonight, Anita Bryant brought us together! She is going to create a national gay force! And the young people in Jackson Mississippi, in Minnesota, in the Richmond, in Woodmere New York, who are hearing her on television, hearing Anita Bryant telling them on television that they are sick, they are wrong, there is no place in this great country for them, no place in this world, they are looking to us for something tonight, and I say, we have got to give them hope!</em><br /><em></em><br />Did the <em>hope</em> of the gay community die with Harvey? Did we become too complacent in expecting someone else to take up the fight? Are we to blame for the defeats we have suffered in our fight for equality?<br /><br />I say - YES! We, as a community, every single one of us, not just the select few fighting the fight, are to blame!<br /><br />We live in an age of instant communication - Facebook, Twitter, Blogs. All a person has to do on Facebook is hit <em>share</em> and all their friends can see a message, and then those friends can <em>share</em> and so on and so on and so on! In a matter of minutes a message can travel from one part of the country to the next and . . .<br /><br />. . . yet, it's not happening. Who's to blame? Hmmm . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-65761862326948920512010-06-23T07:15:00.002-05:002010-06-23T07:33:04.422-05:00UnconscionableIn a totally, I mean <em>totally</em> surprising (as in not at all) turn of events, another antigay individual is, well, GAY! Or, at least that's what is being <em>alleged</em> about a Lutheran pastor.<br /><br />Here's the brief snippet from <em>The Advocate</em> website:<br /><em></em><br /><em>Lavender Magazine, a Minneapolis-based gay publication, has outed a Lutheran pastor critical of gay clergy after reporter John Townsend found the pastor, Rev. Tom Brock, at a confidential Catholic meeting for gay men struggling with chastity.<br /><br />Brock is known for his denunciation of homosexuality, Townsend reported. His church, Hope Lutheran in Minneapolis, left the Evangelical Church in America last year as it liberalized its policy over gay clergy, and Brock has railed against ECLA’s decision to welcome partnered (and presumably sexually active) gay ministers.<br /><br />The magazine’s president acknowledged that Townsend joined the support group, where he encountered the Rev. Brock, without revealing he was a journalist.<br /><br />Brock is now on leave from Hope Lutheran, where another pastor called the magazine’s story “unconscionable.”</em><br /><br /><br />Here's the full <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/22/Gay_Mag_Outs_Antigay_Pastor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AdvocatecomDailyNews+%28Advocate.com+Daily+News%29&utm_content=FaceBook">article</a> with a link to the full story in the magazine.<br /><br />None of the above is really that important. Okay, it's important that the truth (alleged or otherwise) about the pastor was revealed. But for me, the important part of the article is the fact that "another pastor called the magazine's story "unconscionable".<br /><br />Well, excuse the "F" out of me? It's wrong to out someone but not wrong for someone who is allegedly gay to denounce gays? Uh, what delusional world is that pastor living in? Certainly not the real world.<br /><br />Wrong is wrong. If you're gay and promoting antigay, it's wrong. Yes, perhaps the reporter should have outed (oops) so to speak, himself, but then again, isn't the whole point of undercover investigation not outing (oops) yourself? I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />The point is, the dear antigay pastor is <em>allegedly</em> a hypocrite, as are many other lawmakers out there passing antigay legislation while having men on the side.<br /><br />The point is: it is not unconscionable that this pastor was outed. Okay, it is to a certain extent, especially if married w/children. A friend of mine and I get in some quite lively discussions over that subject. I'm not one for outing someone, even if they are passing antigay legislation, if they're married w/children. That's a whole other story, and a whole other set of complications and ramifications that are beyond my understanding.<br /><br />Still . . . no matter my beliefs on the whole outing thingy, I think to call the outing unconscionable is, well, wrong! Yes, it's only my opinion, and probably doesn't count for much.<br /><br />We live in a divided world where equality only exists for some people, and not all people. On a daily basis, gays and lesbians are denied equal rights. They are denied the right to marry, to care for their loved ones, to provide healthcare for their loved ones, and to enjoy equal status with heterosexuals because some people (unfortunately the ones with the most $$) feel that gays/lesbians are deviant, not natural, and that our sexuality is a choice and not genetics.<br /><br />Well, enough said!<br /><br />Okay, maybe not <em>enough said</em>. Let me tell you, and let my mother, for that matter tell you: I was born gay. My mother - 85, people, 85 - has made the statement: Scott, my favorite child (okay, she didn't say that, but I am her favorite) was born the way he was born, just as my other children were. I didn't make a choice, no more than any heterosexual out there made a choice to be heterosexual. They. Were. Born. That. Way!!!!! Geesh.<br /><br />Yes, I know, there are people who will always, always, always, believe that gays choose their <em>lifestyle</em> (oh, you don't want me started on that subject, trust me on that). My being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than Elizabeth Taylor being straight. I was born that way. She was born that way! Enough! Said!<br /><br />The unconscionable act here, was not the reporter (well, perhaps he bears some of the blame), but rather the allegedly gay pastor fighting against who he truly is as an individual and channeling that fight in a hateful, arrogant, and ignorant manner that does more harm than good. I'm just saying . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-59607021572806118252010-06-04T06:50:00.002-05:002010-06-04T06:50:00.280-05:00Perpetuating the Gay StereotypeSo, Logo (that's the gay channel for anyone wondering) is prepping for a new <em>reality</em> series called <em>The Gay Housewives of New York</em>! Yes, you read that right. No kidding on my part.<br /><br />No, the series does not - at least to the best of my knowledge - star a bunch of lesbians.<br /><br />The series, for all intents and purposes . . . oh, wait, why should I explain, when <em>The Advocate </em>did so well . . .<br /><br /><em>Gawker has done some digging and come up with a few of the men slated to take part in the first season of Logo’s upcoming Gay Housewives of New York series.<br /><br />Amazing Race winner turned model-actor-author Reichen Lehmkuhl and his boyfriend, Brazilian model Rodiney Santiago, will appear on the show. Lehmkuhl relocated to New York earlier this year to star in the off-Broadway production of My Big Gay Italian Wedding.<br /><br />Celebrity photographer Mike Ruiz, who is known for his work with stars including Tyra Banks and Dolly Parton, will also appear on the show. Ruiz is Los Angeles-based but travels to New York often for work. </em><br /><em></em><br />Full article <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/02/Reichen_Ruiz_Join_Gay_Housewives/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AdvocatecomDailyNews+%28Advocate.com+Daily+News%29&utm_content=FaceBook">here</a>.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but these are not women, i.e., wives, but men. Yes, as a gay man I know that many within the gay community refer to each other as <em>girl</em>. I don't happen to like that fact, but I can't change that fact . . . other than not to use the term myself. These are men - anatomical correct men at that! They are not women, thus they aren't - at least not in the definitive sense of the word - <em>wives</em>. They might be husbands, but not wives.<br /><br />Hollywood - motion picture, television, and whatnot - has an allegedly ignorant tendency to perpetuate the gay stereotypes. Okay, wait, perhaps not always mainstream Hollywood, but more network TV Hollywood. <em>Will & Grace</em> - you have two extremes: Nellie as can be Jack and straight-laced (no pun intended) Will, a good-looking man that just can't find a date. Trust me, that doesn't happen in the real gay world. 9 times out of 10, a gay male on Network TV is going to perpetuate the Nellie, effeminate, not a butch man stereotype, rather than the reality that only a small percentage of gay men are actually effeminate.<br /><br />If, as many in the community want to end these stereotypes, then why do we continually allow - gay housewives anyone - the stereotypes to continue? Why is it all right for Logo to title a show <em>The Gay Housewives of New York</em>?<br /><br />I don't know. I just know, as a gay man, that I'm more than a bit offended by this perpetuation of gay stereotypes. I've been partnered for almost sixteen years. I don't consider myself Frank's wife, but rather his husband, and vice versa. Frank's not my wife, but my husband . . . well, for all intents and purposes except legally since we live in a back-asswards country (for the most part)! I want to see gay men (and women, for that matter) realistically represented, and not just on Showtime. I want network television to quit portraying a minute percentage of the gay community, and portray the entire spectrum from effeminate to butch (in both gays and lesbians).<br /><br />I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-68431546629096596322010-06-02T13:17:00.002-05:002010-06-02T13:22:29.854-05:00Biblical Misuse by AntigaysSometimes, I don't need to say anything at all, because someone else said it much better. Case in point, the below article from cnn.com. Here's the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/31/granderson.god.gays/index.html?hpt=C2">link</a> to the actual article.<br /><br />Now, since this is me posting, I'm going to <em>italicize</em>/<strong><em>bold</em> </strong>my favorite sections.<br /><br /><strong>Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible<br /></strong><br />Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- My partner and I recently took our mothers to Las Vegas for a week for Mother's Day. It's not our favorite city, but for a pair of 60-somethings who can sit at the penny slot machines for hours, it was heaven.<br /><br />When they were not being robbed by one-armed bandits, we saw a couple of shows and had some amazing dinners. We also enjoyed trying to figure out which women were hookers and which were just dressed like one. And of course saying "public drunkenness" is pretty redundant after 11 a.m.<br /><br />But that's why we go to Vegas, right? Life on the Strip. What happens here stays here ... and all that good stuff. By the end of our trip, the four of us had seen just about everything you would expect to see in a place nicknamed Sin City -- except for faith-based protesters.<br /><br />Funny, a week of walking up and down the main artery of the self-proclaimed heart of moral debauchery, and nary a Bible verse could be heard. In the many times I've been to Las Vegas over the years, I've never seen a religious protest. And yet let a midsize city try to add sexual orientation to its municipal nondiscrimination policy or a high school senior bring a same-gender date to prom, and you would think it was the apocalypse.<br /><br /><em><strong>The Bible doesn't state that one sin is greater than another, but you wouldn't know that by counting the number of comments that quote Scripture on news stories about the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Compare them with how many address murder, or the environment, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and well, the word "hypocrite" comes to mind.</strong></em><br /><br />I am never ashamed to say I follow the teachings of Christ, but I am not always proud to say I am a Christian. That's because <em><strong>I am bothered by the continual mutilation of my religion's basic principle of love by the extremists in my religion who construct a hierarchy of sin -- which does not exist in the Bible -- for no other reason than to protect their own prejudices. </strong></em><br /><br />We've seen this throughout this country's history, and perhaps with the exception of abortion, no current issue illustrates this transgression more so than gay rights.<br /><br />Some conservatives might attend church only twice a year, but ask their opinion about gays in the military. They can find Leviticus 18:22 blindfolded, handcuffed and sinking underwater: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination."<br /><br /><strong><em>Rarely do you hear them mention the other "sexual sins" in Leviticus, such as making love to your wife while she's menstruating.</em></strong> There are some people who say Jesus freed us from the old laws with one side of their mouths while using old laws to condemn GLBT people with the other.<br /><br />Many turn to the destruction of Sodom as proof against homosexuality. But <strong><em>the King James version lists fornication, greed and lying as sins committed in Sodom as well, and never specifies which particular sin caused God's wrath.</em></strong><br /><br />In fact, the word "Sodomite," which some like to toss around as an anti-gay insult, is a mistranslation and is not used in the original Hebrew text. The actual word is "kadesh," and it does not refer to the city, its inhabitants or a specific sexual act. It refers to the occult male prostitutes in the shrines, just as "kedesha" refers to the female equivalent. Neither word reflects sexual orientation.<br /><br />It may be convenient to say Sodom was all about homosexual people, but historically and scripturally, that isn't accurate. This is why I, like so many other Christians, do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.<br /><br />I'm not ducking Leviticus, I'd just rather go directly to the source. <strong><em>Concepts get lost in translation, and we all know history is filled with influential people and institutions that have defined religion for the masses based upon their own selfish needs.</em></strong> For example, King Henry VIII, the man who authorized the first English translation of the Bible, was married six times and essentially had the British Empire separate from the Roman Catholic Church so he could divorce in peace. Then there's King James, whose own writings suggest he was secretly gay or bisexual, according to historians such as Michael B. Young and Caroline Bingham.<br /><br />He was directed to marry for the sake of the throne before authorizing the version of the Bible that swapped "kadesh" for "Sodomite" in the first place. Hmm, where have we heard that story -- closeted gay politician with an anti-gay policy -- before?<br /><br />But theology and history aside, it is clear from the lack of consistent reaction to and organization against the litany of other present-day sins that a large number of people who call themselves Christians do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible either. So, if some of us are picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow, why are so many opting to pick and choose verses that appear to condemn homosexuality and not the one against marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?<br /><strong><em>If sin is sin, why such Christian angst directed at the GLBT community and not the greedy corporate community, which, quite frankly, has more direct impact on the average person's life?</em></strong><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#3366ff;">The answer is simple: Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices.</span></em></strong><br /><br />It's no different from Christian slave owners using Scriptures to feel better about enslaving Africans, or men pointing to Jezebel as a way to keep women out of the clergy, or Bob Jones University picking verses that supported the school's ban on interracial dating.<br /><br /><strong><em>The extremists aren't fighting gay rights because of sin and honoring Leviticus 18:22. If they were, then where are the faith-based organizations spending millions trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10? Is 18:22 more true than 20:10, or does it just support a more common and entrenched prejudice?</em></strong><br /><br /><em>LZ Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, and has contributed to ESPN's Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is a 2010 nominee and the 2009 winner of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award for online journalism as well as the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing. </em>Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-91132249247794646952010-03-26T15:45:00.000-05:002010-03-26T15:45:00.048-05:00Go For It!<em>Go For It!</em> This is President <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Obama's</span> response to opposition to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform.<br /><br />Now, first and foremost, for my job, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform is not a bad thing at all. Yes, I'm in the insurance industry, but the reform, whatever it might be, is most likely going to increase rather than decrease our business. Job. Security. Go <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform!<br /><br />Now, I'm not a huge fan of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform. I believe there should be limits on <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">healthcare</span>. I also believe the reform is only a band-aid on a gaping wound. The reform is only consider one small part of the problem, rather than the overall problem. The band-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">aid's</span> not gonna fix the problem.<br /><br />But, back to <em>go for it!</em> Last time I checked, arrogance (or whatever) went before the fall. Over confidence that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">healthcare</span> reform is going to succeed probably isn't the wisest move on President <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Obama's</span> part. Never, ever underestimate your enemy . . . or the memory of your opponents.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform is a very touchy issue - death threats, rocks through windows, <em>hit lists - </em>with many people. It shouldn't be taken lightly. <em>Go For It!</em> seems a fairly lighthearted attitude, and a bit arrogant. Will he be so confident if the moves by his opponent succeed in delaying the reform? If the courts take up the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">unconstitutionality</span> of the reform? If the idea of separation of church and state doesn't exist based on the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">language</span> in the new bill? <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hmmmm</span> . . .<br /><br />Perhaps a more understated - <em>we'll see </em>- response would have been better. In the end, taunting a hungry lion with a piece of raw meat isn't always a good thing. I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-4568711953717109672010-03-25T09:14:00.002-05:002010-03-25T09:22:28.305-05:00Reactive BehaviorSo, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">healthcare</span> reform has the nation galvanized . . . in good ways and bad ways, but more bad than good. Such is life.<br /><br />Every since the House passed <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform, well . . . rocks through windows, racial slurs, derogatory comments, death threats, and Sarah <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Palin's</span> <em>hit list</em>.<br /><br />First - rocks through windows, death threats, derogatory comments, etc. GROW UP, PEOPLE! You're not in Kindergarten. You're grown adults. Your actions are that of children. Heck, children are better behaved than you.<br /><br />Second - Sarah <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Palin</span>. Now, should Sarah <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Palin</span>, at her age, have what's called a <em>hit list</em> on her <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Facebook</span> page? No! She's not in the mafia - heaven help us if that happens - and she's not a teenage girl. <em>Hit lists</em> are for those two groups. Period. Mrs. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Palin</span>, and the other extremists, need to grow up, get a life, and figure out proactive, not reactive, ways to deal with their discontent with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Healthcare</span> Reform and the current administration.<br /><br />Third - the <em>Tea Party</em>. This group of discontents needs to get a life. Okay, the majority of them, not all of them. Many of the reactive instances lately have been allegedly committed by these members. There is not a place for such <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">reactiveness</span> (yes, I know, not a word, but it works, get over it) in today's society. We're not in the Stone Age, people. We don't hit people over the head with clubs to a) get their attention or b) get a mate. If you want a mate, try <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">eharmony</span>.com - they're pretty discriminatory as is, and would fit right in with the extremist ideals of many members of the Tea Party . . . and the G.O.P. for that matter.<br /><br />So, in short: GET A LIFE! Violence is not the answer. Hit Lists are not the answer. Rocks through windows, death threats, slurs of any type . . . are not the answer. Go raise money for a political candidate. Be proactive, not reactive. GROW UP!Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-24611800978527300832010-03-10T11:00:00.002-06:002010-03-10T11:15:33.775-06:00Normally, I just direct people to the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/10/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2">article</a> in question and just rant away here. Well, not today.<br /><br />I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to defend their prejudice and deny their ignorance. The Catholic Church is no exception.<br /><br />Personally, people take the Bible out of context - a snippet here, a snippet there, everywhere a snippet - to defend their ignorance and oppress individuals. Equality only exists for the allegedly enlightened . . . at least in my opinion.<br /><br />Well, I'm pretty sure the Bible wasn't meant to be taken out of context to unfairly limit equality to people, or make one group feel better about their oppressive natures and denial of equal rights to people. I'm just saying . . . .<br /><br />So, a Catholic school in Colorado has ejected a little girl from the school because her parents are - gasp, the horrors, say it isn't so - lesbians. Oh, yes, they did!<br /><br />The article is below and I'm going to put my comments in bold between certain paragraphs!!<br /><br /><br /><em>(CNN) -- The archdiocese of Denver, Colorado, is defending its decision not to re-enroll two children in a Catholic school in Boulder next year because their parents are lesbians.<br /><br />"The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are 'bad,' or that their children are less loved by God," wrote Archbishop Charles J. Chaput in an article to be published in Thursday's edition of the Denver Catholic Register. "Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ." </em><br /><em><br /></em><em></em><strong>Thou shall not judge, lest ye be judged</strong> - <strong>hmmm, I guess they haven't got that far in the Bible. I'm just saying . . .</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>I mean, seriously, people, this man can sleep at night with this drivel being his life's blood????? Oh, they're not 'bad', just not acceptable. Yeah, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!!</strong><br /><br /><br /><em>He added people with a different understanding of marriage and family life "have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children." </em><br /><em><br /><br /></em><em></em><strong>'Other options'??? Oh, please! I'm sorry, but the Archdiocese of Denver really needs to get a life, and a better spokesman. </strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><em>The issue centers on the Sacred Heart of Jesus School, where the children are currently enrolled, the older of whom has been enrolled in kindergarten for next year but will not be allowed to enter first grade and the younger of whom is in preschool but will not be allowed to enter kindergarten.<br /><br />"The Archdiocese of Denver has acted very unjustly in singling out this child for exclusion," said DignityUSA Executive Director Marianne Duddy-Burke in a written statement Monday, before it became clear that two children were affected. "Until every student's parents are tested on Catholic teaching, this action by Catholic officials cannot be understood as anything other than discrimination on the back of a child. At a tender age, this child has learned that Catholic officials are willing to inflict pain on children and families." </em><br /><p><strong>Woo-hoo! Agree! Agree! Agree!!</strong></p><em>The decision was made public last week.<br /><br />"These actions by the Denver Archdiocese harm the student by taking the child away from friends, teachers and community," said Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "It's deeply troubling to see any school remove a child from their educational program simply as the means of rejecting that child's parents."<br /><br />In a posting of his sermon, the Rev. Bill Breslin, pastor of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, supported the decision. "The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."<br /></em><br /><strong>Who is he to judge whether a relationship is good or not?? I mean, seriously! The Catholic Church is infamous for it's delicate dealing of pedophilia within the Church for centuries. <em>Oh, let's just transfer this priest to another parish, surely he's learned his lesson</em>. So, why should their ill treatment of a child be any different in a different situation? The Catholic Church is famous for covering things up, only this time, they're right out in the opening allegedly implying that they know what's best . . . for them, not the rest of us. Go figure!</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><em>About 30 opponents of the move, "mostly hetero allies of the gay community," protested Sunday outside the church during Mass, said Dave Ensign, board president of Boulder Pride, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center and services organization.<br /><br />Ensign handed out flyers to the protesters and then joined the parishioners as they listened to the sermon defending the church's move. "I was disappointed, but it was pretty much what I was expecting to hear," he said. He added that the larger community's reaction has been positive. "When people hear about this, they speak up and I think that says a lot about our community," he said.<br /><br />The children have not been identified publicly. </em><br /><em></em><br /><strong>In the end, the children (as usual) are the ones hurt while the allegedly ignorant skip on their merrily way down the path of judgment toward others as they take the Bible out of context<em>.</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />Now, I know this isn't a reflection of all Catholics. I know there are many Catholics out there, my family among them, that do not agree with the archaic teachings of the Church, nor the instance by the Pope to remain in the Dark Ages, rather than move forward into the 21st Century . . . and beyond. The sad thing here, the children, as normal, pay the price for the alleged ignorance of adults!<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-38231817443049908642009-11-17T16:32:00.002-06:002009-11-17T16:41:34.042-06:00Sarah Palin & SexismSarah Palin, Sarah Palin, why did you have to come out of hiding? I was enjoying the moments of peace and quiet since you went back to Alaska. But, lo and behold, the silence is broken. You wrote a book, which you are now promoting. Le Sigh.<br /><br />Okay, I'm done . . . for the moment. Go <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/17/palin-slams-sexist-newsweek-cover/">here</a>, read the article on cnn.com and then hop back over for my deep, intellectual thoughts and insights on . . . sexism according to The Rogue!<br /><br />Basically, <em>Newsweek's </em>cover shows Sarah Palin in a running outfit. Mrs. Palin believes that the photo is sexist.<br /><br />Okay, I'll bite . . . why??<br /><br />I have no clue why. Personally, if she thought the running outfit was sexist, why was she wearing it in the first place? I mean, seriously. She put the outfit on. She had no problem wearing the outfit for a photo shoot with a running magazine, and yet when another magazine puts said picture on their cover . . . it's sexist.<br /><br />Yeah, the logic escapes me as well.<br /><br />If the outfit is sexist on <em>Newsweek</em> shouldn't it be considered sexist on <em>Runners World</em>? Does context really matter in this instance?<br /><br />Of course it doesn't.<br /><br />Don't you like how I keep answering my own questions???<br /><br />I guess Mrs. Palin has nothing better to do than attempt to draw as much attention to herself on her book promotion tour . . . .hhhmmmmm, is that the smell of strategy??? Oh, I get it, do whatever you can to get on the news so you can mention your book. Ahhh, I'll have to remember that one in the near future.<br /><br />Well, at least Mrs. Palin is good inspiration for this blog.<br /><br />I do have some advice for Mrs. Palin: if you don't want pictures of yourself, in a shorty-short-short running outfit that some (namely yourself) consider sexist, then I wouldn't pose in the outfit in the first place. I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-25785133196174634832009-11-04T08:10:00.002-06:002009-11-04T08:25:23.698-06:00The Smartest ThingSo, the GOP won a few elections. Woo-hoo!<br /><br />It's too bad that the winners of those elections aren't going to do anything different than any other politician does when they win the election. They are not going to fulfill their campaign promises. They are not going to try to effect change. They are going to continue the stagnation of the political spectrum and crush the hopes and dreams of the people who elected them into office.<br /><br />My main question here: Why are you a Democrat/Republican?<br /><br />I can answer that question for the majority of people: You are a Democrat/Republican because your parents were, your grandparents were, your great-grandparents were and down through the generations to the founding of America.<br /><br />Probably 85% of the time people don't choose their political party, it is chosen for them by their parents.<br /><br />Well, let me tell you, the smartest thing (like how I tied in the title of the post) my parents ever did was . . . let us choose our own political affiliation.<br /><br />My parents never once, never, while we were growing up, discussed politics with us. Not. Once. By the time I turned 18 and could register to vote . . . I had no clue to my parents' political affiliation. Not! A! Clue!<br /><br />My parents believed in their children enough to let them decide things on their own without providing undue influence.<br /><br />Now, if I'd asked, I'm sure Mom or Dad might have said <em>well, we're . . .</em> Then again, they might have said<em> well, you need to make this decision on your own, based on your feelings, and not ours</em>. I'd really like to think they'd go with that option. In fact, they did go with that option by not influencing me at all.<br /><br />They did that with a lot of other things as well.<br /><br />My siblings and I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. My parents were from the South. My siblings and I never knew our parents were prejudice until we were all grown, out of the house, and had our own lives?<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Well, because being highly intelligent individuals, my parents didn't enforce their belief systems on their children. They didn't enforce their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, or anything on us. They let us make our own decisions, and some mistakes as well . . . and learn from those decisions, and the mistakes. Oh, and trust me, my political affiliation wasn't one of the mistakes. The perm in the 90s . . . yeah, that was a mistake!<br /><br />The sad thing with our current political system, and the voters electing <em>these</em> people into office - the majority of them probably have no clue why they are voting Republican/Democrat. They're just like lemmings - following the leader off the cliff to their ultimate death.<br /><br />Just because a person's parents vote Republican/Democrat, doesn't mean said person has to vote the same way. Unfortunately, too few people realize this truly amazing fact of life.<br /><br />So, the GOP wins some, the Democrats win some, each side claims <em>VICTORY</em> and yet, there is no victory because the American people are the ones who suffer because the politicians all go in to office with an agenda that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the promises they made to get elected in the first place. I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-72790085657072264262009-09-17T11:11:00.003-05:002009-09-17T11:21:20.307-05:00Nobody's Business<em>Another neighbor told the Herald Sun she had her suspicions about the father but did not want to interfere.</em><br /><br /><em>"I didn't go to anybody, because it wasn't anybody's business," she told the paper.</em><br /><br /><em>She added that the woman who encouraged the victim to contact police "has always been a busybody." </em><br /><br />Have we as a society reached a point where we no longer care?<br /><br />The above <em>italicized</em> section is an excerpt from an article you can find <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/17/australia.incest/index.html?iref=mpstoryview">here</a> (cnn.com). Long story short - man began sexually abusing his daughter in 1970 . . . and continued the abuse almost daily until 2007. 37 years. The man fathered four children, one of which died, all of which had defects, with his daughter.<br /><br />Now, the story is horrifying to begin with, let alone the neighbor's attitude.<br /><br />I know, people just don't want to get involved. People just want to live their ordinary little lives and pretend everything is find and dandy.<br /><br />Everything is not <em>fine and dandy</em>. A woman was sexually abused by her father for 37 years. 37 years. 37 years. She had four children . . . by her father. Oh, and her mother's comments . . . <em>"We lived in a big house, so I wouldn't have known".</em><br /><br />She wouldn't have known.<br /><br />She wouldn't have known.<br /><br />She wouldn't have known!!!!<br /><br />How in the frak can you not know that your husband is having sex with your daughter . . . for 37 years?? 37 years!!!!!<br /><br />Seriously! Then, the lovely neighbor that it's not their place.<br /><br />Yes!<br /><br />It!<br /><br />Is!<br /><br />At some point, it is somebody's <em>place! </em>At some point in time, we as humans, need to stand up for the dignity of life. At some point in time, we as humans, need to say enough is enough.<br /><br />37 years, people, and the lovely neighbor says <em>"I didn't go to anybody, because it wasn't anybody's business</em>".<br /><br />Yes, it is somebody's business. At some point in time, somebody needs to care enough. If we stop caring, if we let abuse continue for 37 years - 37 years - then we are no better than the animals we kill on a daily basis to feed ourselves. If we stop caring, if we let abuse continue for 37 years - 37 years - then we are . . . well . . . we're no longer human.<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-81527901594750841822009-09-16T07:13:00.002-05:002009-09-16T07:31:53.796-05:00Sexual Orientation Discrimination BillSo, Nashville's Metro Council passed the <em>sexual orientation discrimination bill </em>which means business cannot discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Woo-hoo.<br /><br />There were mostly <em>yeas</em> in the passage of this bill.<br /><br />There were, of course, some <em>nays</em> as well.<br /><br />One strong opponent, voicing his dissent, his moral opinion, was a minister from a local church. Go figure.<br /><br />I mean, this man, on his moral soapbox, basically said (well, not in so many words, but . . .) <em>it is okay, okay, I tell you, to discriminate against gays and lesbians. God would want you to discriminate against gays and lesbians</em>.<br /><br />Okay, he didn't say that, but, for all intents and purposes this man of God (written with a shake of the head and a snide chuckle . . . man of God . . . PLEASE!), believes, believes I tell you, that allowing non-discrimination to my <em>people </em>(gays and lesbians, people, just in case you didn't have a clue) is <em>morally wrong</em>. In fact, this lovely enlightened (insert snark here) individual actually said <em>We obviously realize this is not a discrimination issue this is a moral issue we believe Council tonight has sanctioned an immoral lifestyle.</em><br /><br />First, I must digress. Lifestyle? WTF? Seriously people, it's genetics, pure and simple, no question. Lifestyle? Geesh!<br /><br />Second . . . this man is probably just jealous of the immoral things I can do in the . . .<br /><br />Now, back to our scheduled rant . . .<br /><br />WTH?!?!<br /><br />Moral issue???<br /><br />Yes, the people from the Land of Delusion are alive and well . . . and unfortunately living in Nashville, TN.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention this opponent is a minister? Why, yes, I believe I did, but I'd thought I'd remind you just for <em>kicks</em>.<br /><br />He is A. Man. Of. God!! Why do I have the sense of an echoing, computer generated voice saying those words over and over again????<br /><br />Oh, did I mention that it appears he allegedly believes he is the moral compass for Nashville. Boy, he must carry a lot of weight on those tiny shoulders.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention he wore his fancy - <em>I'm a hetero and only heteros deserve equality</em> - sticker on his nicely pressed shirt?? Awwww, how cute. His drones wore them as well. They looked so, well, gay with their matching stickers . . . sorry, these things just tumble out of my head sometimes.<br /><br />I mean, seriously people.<br /><br />Basically, this man and his drones believe . . . it is okay to discriminate. They, in fact, support discrimination. They, in fact, promote discrimination with their cutesy little stickers of a stick man and woman (really, it was the symbols that appear on bathroom doors - irony, people, irony so sharp it hurts) holding hands.<br /><br />I mean, these people, really think they are capable of deciding an issue this big for E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y!<br /><br />So, go forth . . . and discriminate!<br /><br />It's okay, really it is, well at least according to the people with the bathroom symbols stuck to their chests!<br /><br />My final thought (for now) . . . what if my <em>people</em> were put on Earth as a test for the allegedly morally righteous? Huh? What if? I mean, seriously, if my<em> people</em> are a test, you darn well know who just failed that test . . . Seriously, you do, you can find them by the bathroom symbols stuck to their chests. I'm just saying . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-90053181263522254332009-08-06T07:50:00.002-05:002009-08-06T07:55:23.041-05:00Ya Think????<em>The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective - see full aritcle <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html">here</a>.</em><br /><br />I mean, seriously, people!!! I cannot (okay, I can) believe that there are so many ignorant (no <em>allegedly</em> about this one) people out there that think a person born gay (genetics, people, not choice) can suddenly turn straight. Yeah, a gay man can have sex with a woman. OMG!! But, you dang well know why his eyes are closed and what he's fantasizing about . . . and it's not the woman beneath him.<br /><br />So, I mean, this whole issue just confuses me. I really think the people that think gays can go straight are really just faux heterosexuals struggle with their own genetic make-up. They want to believe it's all a choice and not genetics, that therapy can <em>cure</em> the sickness, because it makes them feel better about their own conflicting emotions about their genetic make-up.<br /><br />I mean, can we spend any more money on pointless issues???? I'm just saying . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-51901999140504949002009-07-19T16:44:00.001-05:002009-07-19T16:46:38.493-05:00How The Mighty Have FallenSo, I’m out the other night and I see this guy I had relations with long ago and far away, in another place and time. He was older, not as slender, and his hair showing the signs of age. Oh, it was still thick and luxuriant, but grayer now. My first thought (shallow) was how the mighty have fallen. I mean, where was, as my friend Lori once said, the dark, pagan god. Okay, she didn’t say that, but it sounds really good, so I used it. She actually saw him from a distance the first time, on a misty night. He was standing beneath a street light, wearing a long coat, and she was like oh, my God, he’s gorgeous. Yes, he was. It was a different time and place in my life.<br /><br />So, the mighty dark and pagan god is not aging as well as he could. Heck, does anyone really age as well as they could? Its constant work, trust me on that – exercise, eating right (for the most part), and trying to stave off the years the best that I can.<br /><br />Once I got beyond my shallow (hey, it happens, get over it) thoughts, I came to another realization: he still had it, only in a different way. He wasn’t pursuing the younger men (he’s a few years older, but always went for the youngish types) this time. This time, the man he was pursuing – flirting, joking, smiling, dancing to the music – was a man probably 15 – 20 years his senior.<br /><br />How the mighty have fallen!<br /><br />Did he somehow realize that – extra weight, grey hair, the signs of youth no longer present – he couldn’t attract the younger men? Did the vibrancy of his personality somehow diminish with that realization? I mean, here was this man (the welcome wagon of Nashville – different story, another post, perhaps a book) who relentlessly and successfully pursued younger men, dancing and flirting with an older man. I mean, he had cards with his name and number on them. Seriously, people, cards. Now, the mighty have fallen.<br /><br />Is gaydom so jaded that when men reach a certain age that stop going after what they want and start going after what they don’t want? Did he reach some age and realize that he would have to settle for something less? Is gaydom geared only to the young and the old have no chance at all?<br />So, the mighty fell and this man (me, in case you’re wondering) wonders why? I wonder if everybody reaches a point in their life when they give up on what they want?<br /><br />I mean, I’m lucky. I found Frank fifteen years ago. The road to happiness has been rocky at times, but we survived. We love one another. We work through our problems. But, a different path in life, and me alone at 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 – what path would I choose? Would I sacrifice all my beliefs for companionship? Would I sacrifice what I truly wanted just so I wasn’t alone?<br /><br />Did Mr. Dark Pagan God do just that? Do older gay men everywhere do the same thing?<br /><br />I don’t have the answers to my questions. I just know that the mighty fell, and it wasn’t pretty.<br /><br />Yeah, this post is probably a bit judgmental. That’s not my intent. My intent is to pose the question: at what point do we give up on ourselves and accept less than we deserve?<br /><br />Mr. Dark Pagan God dancing, joking, flirting with a man he wouldn’t (trust me on that) have looked at twice 16 years ago when I first knew him. Did the onset of age change his perspective on life? Did the fear of loneliness cause him to rearrange his thought pattern to allow him to flirt with someone – here/now – that he would have ignored 16 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago?<br /><br />I’m just wondering . . .Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-90787520451872095892009-07-17T07:54:00.002-05:002009-07-17T08:01:07.248-05:00Morality or Opportunity?Why is the media still focusing on South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford? Yes, the man had an affair. So what? His affair doesn't merit the constant media attention.<br /><br />Did his affair affect his duties as Governor? Did his affair stop him from doing his job? Did his affair cause the United States to go to war with some foreign country? Did his affair cause the recession? Did his affair cause the housing crisis? Did his affair . . .<br /><br />Well, the obvious answer is: NO! So, why in the frak is the media still focusing on this issue? A FL couple was brutally murdered in their home this week while their nine developmentally disabled children slept. 8 people have been arrested so far. Still, Gov. Sandford is making news. Still, we're talking about a man who had an affair.<br /><br />As M'Lynn in <em>Steel Magnolias</em> once said . . . 'why, why, why, why, whhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyy!'<br /><br />I mean seriously, people, the only reason this issue is still in the news is because the Gov. political opponents want him out of office. His opponents are not (at least in my opinion) doing this because of their high moral values, but rather because they are opportunistic political rats who see an opportunity for their party to take a position of power. That's it in a nutshell, dear readers. Morality has nothing to do with Gov. Sanford still being in the news. I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />S<br /><br />p.s. yes, the affair was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, but is it any more wrong than 99.9% of politicians breaking all their campaign promises once they get in office?????? I don't think so.Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-3367376169156416812009-07-09T07:01:00.002-05:002009-07-09T07:05:24.809-05:00Woo-Hoo Massachusetts!!!In a bold, brave, stunning, extraordinary, and so many other postive exclamatory (in a good way words), Massachusetts is suing the U.S. government, challenging DOMA! Article below or you can go <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/08/massachusetts.marriage.lawsuit/index.html">here</a>. Woo-hoo!<br /><br /><em>(CNN) -- Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"We're taking this action today because, first, we believe that [the Defense of Marriage Act] directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents," Attorney General Martha Coakley said Wednesday afternoon.</em><br /><br /><em>"Massachusetts has a single category of married persons, and we view all married persons equally and identically," she said.</em><br /><br /><em>"DOMA divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage."<br />The lawsuit argues that the act, which became law in 1996, denies </em><a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Same_Sex_Marriage" _extended="true"><em>same-sex</em></a><em> couples essential rights and protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.</em><br /><br /><em>"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in federal court.</em><br /><br /><a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Massachusetts" _extended="true"><em>Massachusetts</em></a><em>, the first state to legalize gay marriage, said that about 16,000 same-sex couples have been married there since 2004, when it began issuing marriage licenses. Since that time, the lawsuit said, "the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state. "</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>The state is challenging Section 3 of the law, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and a spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."</em><br /><br /><em>Before the act, the lawsuit argues, defining marital status was the prerogative of the states.<br />The law "eviscerated more than 200 years of federal government deference to the states with respect to defining marriage," it said.</em><br /><br /><em>The lawsuit also argues that the law forces Massachusetts to treat same-sex married couples differently from heterosexual married couples, particularly through determining who qualifies for the state's Medicaid program, known as MassHealth, and whether a same-sex spouse of a veteran can be buried in a veteran cemetery.</em><br /><br /><em>"But for DOMA, married individuals in same-sex relationships in the commonwealth would receive the same status, obligations, responsibilities, rights, and protections as married individuals in different-sex relationships under local, state, and federal laws," the lawsuit said.<br />The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and the United States itself.</em><br /><br /><em>Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said the department will review the case but noted that President Obama supports the legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. </em><br /><br /><em>In March, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- the same Boston-based group that successfully argued in 2003 for same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts -- also sued the federal government over Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.</em><br /><br /><em>Besides Massachusetts, three other states recognize same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa. Vermont and New Hampshire will join their company when same-sex marriages become legal later this year and early next year. (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/">www.cnn.com</a> 07/08/2009)</em>Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-78299581414838919892009-07-08T08:00:00.003-05:002009-07-08T08:06:53.395-05:00I'm a quitter, not a finisher!Those are the words Sarah Palin should have spoken in her most recent interview.<br /><br />So, Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska and proved once again that she has no clue what she's talking about.<br /><br />Her latest statement: I'm not a quitter, I'm a finisher!" Okay, she quit her job, which makes her a quitter. She didn't finish her job as governor, so, uh, doesn't that maker her a non-finisher??? I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />I mean, seriously, people, does she actually think she's the hope of the Republican party? Oh, and then there's a new poll out there that said 7 out of 10 Republicans would vote for her. What about the other 3? Oh, that's right, they're going to vote Democrat because they can't stand her! Woo-hoo! Why, woo-hoo? Well, figure it out, if every 3 out of 10 Republicans votes Democrat, plus the majority of Democrats voting Democrat, well, that should push the Democrat to a win. Yeah, I know, the 3 out of 10 Republicans will probably just not vote. Woo-hoo! 3 out of 10 less Republicans voting!<br /><br />Hey, do you realize Sarah Palin just created a Win/Win situation! First time I've had something positive to say about the woman.<br /><br />Yes, I'm being a bit snarkity-snark-snark this morning. I'm allowed. I thought after the election I wouldn't have to hear about Sarah Palin. I hoped beyond hope that she would go back to Alaska and fade into the background. Well, so much for the hopes of millions upon millions of people. Like a bad check, she keeps bouncing back into the spotlight. I mean, can't we have a Sarah Palin free 10 year period, or something like that? I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-8861027174494847822009-06-16T11:17:00.002-05:002009-06-16T11:27:09.436-05:00A Joke Taken Too Far?So, David Letterman made some inappropriate (is anyone really surprised) jokes about Bristol Palin. Sarah Palin, of course, her fifteen minutes of fame over (thankfully) used this opportunity to jump back (hopefully very briefly) into the spotlight.<br /><br />Now, the joke was in very poor taste. Still, it was a joke, and people need to get a life.<br /><br />Now this from cnn.com . . .<br /><br /><em>CNN) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is accepting comedian David Letterman's apology over the controversial joke directed at her daughter, but says she hopes "men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve."<br />"Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction," Palin said in a statement. "And this is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech – in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."<br />Palin's comments come hours after the late night talk show host formally apologized for the off-color joke he made last week about one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's daughters that set off a war of words between the Letterman and the Palin family.</em><br /><br /><em>"It was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it," Letterman said in the opening monologue of Monday night's show.</em><br /><br /><em>Meanwhile John Ziegler, the conservative radio talk show host who has made a film about Palin, is set to lead a protest Tuesday outside the theater where Letterman's show is taped. Ziegler is calling for the late night host’s ouster.</em><br /><br />Now, my response . . .<br /><br />First Paragraph - seriously?? Evolve?<br /><br />Second Paragraph - I'm sorry, isn't it a bit hypocritical for Sarah Palin to tout free speech, when she's blasting Letterman for utilizing his right to free speech? Oh, and what does the military have to do with the whole <em>joke </em>incident. Nothing. As usual, Sarah Palin demonstrates her inability to carry on a coherent conversation. Yes, both parties made their point. The fact is, neither point should have gained the media attention they did.<br /><br />Third/Fourth Paragraph - personally, I don't think he owed anybody an apology. I'm sorry, there are greater issues facing this country right now then whether or not somebody made an inappropriate joke. Equality is being denied to the GLBT community on a daily basis. President Obama is breaking (did anyone expect anything less) the promises he made to get elected. We're still in Iraq. The recession is still here. David Lettrerman's inappropriate joke should not be the news story of the day.<br /><br />Fifth Paragraph - would John Ziegler be arranging a protest outside of Letterman's show if he hadn't made a film about Palin? NO! The protest is just his way of promoting his film. Enough Said!<br /><br />So, if you want to care about something . . . care about the denial of equality, the recession, the war in Iraq, and anything except the silliness (yes, I just devoted a blog post to this - go figure) surrounding a joke. I'm just saying . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-89441920069202092752009-06-10T12:12:00.002-05:002009-06-10T12:19:35.025-05:00Idiocy in IdahoSad, but true . . . go <a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/10/meanwhile-in-idaho">here</a> to read the blog post.<br /><br />Recently . . .<br /><br /><em>A same-sex couple and their three foster children were denied a reduced admission price to a pool in eastern Idaho because the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation says the five don't fit the definition of a family. </em><br /><br /><em>Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood say they and their three children were recently denied the resort's advertised family admission price to the Olympic Swimming Complex at Lava Hot Springs.</em><br /><em></em><br />The reason (you're gonna love this) . . . <em>the state of Idaho doesn't recognize gay or lesbian marriage and defines a family as one male, one female and children.</em><br /><br />So, what's wrong with the above definition? Have you figured it out yet? I bet you have. Basically, with this definition the following are excluded . . .<br /><ul><li>Divorced mother with two children - she's missing the man, therefore she's not considered a family by the Idaho definition.</li><li>Divorced father with three children - he's missing the woman, therefore . . . </li><li>Widowed mother/father with four children - missing the man/woman . . .</li><li>Married man and woman with one child - their missing the children, therefore . . . oh, yes, the definition clearly uses the plural <em>children</em> rather than <em>child(ren)</em> which would have been the proper definition.</li><li>Single mother/father w/children . . . again, missing the other half, therefore not a family and not eligible for the discounted rate.</li></ul><p>This is too sad, but also - in an ironic way - kind of funny. I really think the couple involved needs to sue the State, request membership records and find out how many non-family units received the discounted rates. The State should then have to go back and collect all the back money due them since those people were paying the wrong rate. I'm just saying . . .</p><p>S</p>Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-73385947275764413232009-06-10T07:38:00.002-05:002009-06-10T07:41:51.831-05:00BlogsBelow are four, blogs I found throug an article on <a href="http://www.advocate.com/">www.advocate.com</a>. These are basically blogs dealing with issues for the GLBT community.<br /><br />The four blogs below are the ones I'm currently - probably much to my dismay, and problem great fodder for this blog - following:<br /><br /><a title="blocked::http://www.pamshouseblend.com/" href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/">http://www.pamshouseblend.com/</a><br /><a title="blocked::http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/" href="http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/">http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/</a><br /><a title="blocked::http://www.signorile.com/" href="http://www.signorile.com/">http://www.signorile.com/</a><br /><a title="blocked::http://www.goodasyou.org/" href="http://www.goodasyou.org/">http://www.goodasyou.org/</a><br /><br />Here's the full list, in no particular order:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.americablog.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="92">AmericaBlog.com:</a><br /><a href="http://www.gawker.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="93">Gawker.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.dlisted.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="94">DListed.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="92">HuffingtonPost.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.ohlalamag.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="94">OhLaLaMag.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.signorile.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="92">Signorile.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/">PamsHouseBlend</a><br /><a href="http://www.towleroad.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="93">TowleRoad.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.worldofwonder.net/" target="_blank" linkindex="94">WorldofWonder.net</a><br /><a href="http://www.perezhilton.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="92">PerezHilton.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.slog.thestranger.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="93">Slog.TheStranger.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.pinkisthenewblog.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="92">PinkIsTheNewBlog.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.popnography.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="93">Popnography.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.rodonline.typepad.com/" target="_blank" linkindex="94">Rod 2.0</a><br /><a href="http://www.goodasyou.org/" target="_blank" linkindex="93">GoodAsYou.org</a><br /><br />Some of the blogs are gossip blogs, some political, and some very important news blogs for the <em>community</em>. So, if you're one of my <em>people</em>, or if you're not ignorantly inclined and care about equality and justice for all . . . check them out. They're definitely interesting and thought provoking . . . well, at least the four I follow. Some of the other ones . . .<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-12607838148409349552009-06-09T06:57:00.002-05:002009-06-09T07:07:55.417-05:00At what age . . .. . . do men, if they ever had it in the first place, lose all fashion sense? I mean, is there some line that men (well, the majority of them, mainly hetero, but some of my <em>people</em> as well) cross when suddenly they begin to dress in a more hideous fashion than normal?<br /><br />This morning, driving to work, enjoying a pleasant day and then - BAM - the Fashion SWAT team is swarming over two men wearing shorts, and socks up to their frakkin' knees. Yes, their frakkin' knees. I think they had to call out the SWAT team because one of the men was wearing dark socks.<br /><br />So, now you see the whole point of this post. Pretty soon, I'm sure those men will be wearing shorts down to their knees and socks up to their knees. Please, shoot me if you ever see me dressed like that and it's not Halloween.<br /><br />Now, as someone still under 50 . . . if I'm wearing shorts and tennis shoes, I wear the little footie socks. I don't wear socks that cover my ankles. Why? Because it's WRONG people, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Repeat after me: WRONG! Of course, I wear the footies because I have excellent calves and ankles and just like showing them off. I'm just saying . . . But, back to this snark filled post . . . why, people, why, the need to wear socks up to your knees once you reach a certain age? My father - much to the dismay of his four children who had to go out in public with him - did the same thing. I'm still in therapy over that incident, among other things from my childhood. Are men genetically predispositioned to do these things? Is there no hope for me?<br /><br />Oh, and while I'm on the subject of fashion: socks with sandals is a definite no-no! Never, no matter the reason, wear socks with your sandals. Frank, if you're reading this blog: this means you! Oh, and white socks with dress shoes - NO! Again, Frank, if you're reading this blog: this means you. Picture it, Frank and I out for a night at the theater. He's dressed so nice - dress shirt, khaki, dress shoes. He's a fine looking man. We sit down, he crosses his leg, his khakis ride up to reveal . . . white socks. I was so horrified I sat in another row. Kidding. I did make him put both feet on the floor and promise me never, ever, not in a gazillion years, to do that ever, ever, ever again. Now, before we leave the house, I do a sock check. Hey, it's my duty to keep the fashion police as far away from us as possible.<br /><br />Last, men in their 60s or above, overweight, covered in hair, should not, under any circumstances, wear a speedo! I think I just went blind!<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17082173.post-84403556003377818782009-05-26T14:12:00.003-05:002009-05-26T15:28:23.213-05:00DisappointedTo say I'm <strong><em><span style="color:#6600cc;">disappointed</span></em></strong> in the California State Supreme Court's ruling regarding the discriminatory Proposition 8 is an understatement. Yes, the court ruled - for the most part - against equality. Go <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/index.html">here</a> for the full story.<br /><br />How can denying someone equality be considered justice? How can saying that 18,000 people have the right to be married under the law and that thousands of others don't is equality? It is is not. It is, plain and simple, <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">DISCRIMINATION</span></strong>. Repeat after me - <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">DISCRIMINATION</span></strong>.<br /><br />And that, dear readers, is all I have the energy for right now. I don't have the energy to rant and rave against the INJUSTICE served to the GLBT Community today. I don't have the ability to organize my thoughts and provide a thought provoking blog post. I just have a huge, huge amount of disappointment that is so frakkinly overwhelming!<br /><br />I mean, seriously, people, get a life and get a clue. Justice doesn't exist for everybody in the United States. Equality doesn't exist either. And I . . . I . . . just don't know any more. What's the point? How long should the GLBT Community sit idly by as we are openly discriminated against time and time again? How long should we hope for resolution when it is obvious that resolution only exists for heterosexual people? At what point do we just give up?<br /><br />We don't. We keep on fighting for <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">EQUALITY</span></strong>! We keep on fighting for JUSTICE. We keep on fighting against blatant, outright, oppressive <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">DISCRIMINATION</span></strong>. We do what we must, we fight the fight, and we keep on going. Why?<br /><br />I'll tell you why. No, wait, I'll let Catherine Cash Spellman tell you why by using a quote from her book <u>Bless the Child</u> . . .<br /><br /><em>"What will I do?" she cried into the hot desert wind.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"You will fight against Fate and the Devil and the world and God and everybody, if you must! That's where the dignity lies. You can't control what they do to you. Only what you do in return. This is no fair game we've been sent to play here. Hateful things happen. People die. People suffer. People are born with no limbs, no sight, no hearing. Courage! That's all there is!"</em><br /><em></em><br />We must have courage and we must continue the fight for <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">EQUALITY</span></strong>. We cannot give up in the face of obvious <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">DISCRIMINATION</span></strong> and INJUSTICE. We must have . . . <strong><span style="color:#00cccc;">courage</span></strong>!<br /><br />SScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06905515473737579937noreply@blogger.com0