Is Gay the new Jew?

Not long ago, while DOMA and California's Prop. 8 were being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, there was also a collection of stories in the news from around the world, same-sex marriage bans, criminalization of saying anything pro-gay and in some places, the possibility of being imprisoned for life for being honest about it in one's own life. Russia has since declared open season on gay men.

About the same time, I saw a collection of stories that asked the question, "Is Gay the new Black?" The population of Americans of African Ancestry sometimes come across as if they hold some unique history of suffering in their past, similar to speaking with Jews about the Holocaust, as if only 6 million Jews were killed and not 5-6 million non-Jews as well. We really seem to love and take pride in our pain.

While I was working on the previous blog entry, "Judas Iscariot & Adolf Hitler", I was really re-awakened to how the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler used longstanding cultural hatreds to persuade people to do and allow despicable things to be done to others.

I am often amazed at the things people are willing to justify to validate their need to demonize those who think, feel, believe or love differently then themselves. There seems to be a nearly pathological need in the human ego to be right and to make others conform to its view of rightness.

While thinking about the one and hearing about the other, I started to compare the three: Black, Jew and Gay. In many ways I found them to be surprisingly similar from a "haters" perspective.

All three have collections of people who deny their personhood because of aspects of themselves, the hated, are not in control of; yes, it is possible to convert your religion, but Germany was interested in bloodlines and you can deny your sexual orientation, but I cannot imagine that is ever a happy and fulfilling relationship for either party.

From the specific view of the fight for civil rights, Black and Gay have many similarities, but I think in many ways, Jew and Gay are much more in alignment. Race, somewhat cannot be hidden. A light-skinned person may choose to pass for whatever reason, but most do not have that option open to them.

Jew and Gay are both things that in the "predominant society" can be kept quiet and hidden away into those secret places, both require a statement of self to make others aware.

Both have suffered from cultural and historic misunderstandings and persecutions for standing up for who they are. In many places, it takes serious personal strength to admit to those around you what you are, and if you come from a more Orthodox background, to wear the clothing that will mark you as an outsider, how much less to be a "girlie-boy" and just be what God made you.

The lies of Jewish persecutors have ranged from the ridiculous to the laughably insane, with the need to demean another to justify the hatred and invalidation of another; Christian babies are slaughtered for their blood for Jewish religious rituals, get real. Homosexuals have likewise been slandered in the need of an unquestioning majority to justify the ability to validate bashing; Gay men cannot procreate so they must recruit your children. Gay men cannot be near small boys as they will want to molest them, but the fact that most men on boy sexual assaults take place by self-proclaimed heterosexual men.

As far as Germany goes, in the concentration camps, Jews were given the golden Star of David to demarcate them from the other populations, but in the hierarchy of the social structure, as much as the Jews were hated by Germans and other prisoners, there was a group of lower status, they wore a pink triangle to show them as homosexual.
Either way, Black, Jew or Gay, the simple fact is that "if you can hate one, you can easily hate another" (if you know who said that, please let me know) and yet:

“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”

Herman Hesse
I often wonder what aspect of race, religion or orientation triggers within ourselves and what place that self-love/loathing inhabits? I firmly believe that to be truly human, will eventually require each of us to look within and find those self-loved spots that we have been taught to feel shame for that allows us to deny personhood to another, whatever the reason.

“In a world filled with hate, we must still dare to hope. In a world filled with anger, we must still dare to comfort. In a world filled with despair, we must still dare to dream. And in a world filled with distrust, we must still dare to believe.”

Michael Jackson

The hypocrisy of judging

When I watch television or read the news, I am so often saddened to see just what a judgmental people we have become. Sure, we have always judged one another, but as of late we seem to be seriously more vicious in our attacks.

We judge one another on a wide range of areas, race, gender, orientation, religion, financial status, education, clothing, speech, body-language, etc...

I take a lot of heat from my Christian friends (yes, I still have some, the ones that know its not personal). I am often accused of being anti-Christian, I am not. I tend to ride them tough since they are the dominant religious group in the United States. Riding Muslims hard would work if I lived in Saudi Arabia or some place that is an Islamic state, but in today's America the point would be completely missed by most.

Here is an example of one aspect of where Christianity is failing I think:


I will be the first to admit that I have some serious issues where it comes to the Westboro Baptist Church (frightening that the church's homepage is the "GodHatesFags.com" site). Surprisingly, my biggest issue with them is not their strong dislike of homosexuals or their completely tasteless tactics of protesting, but the use of their children in their protests. Hate is something that has to be taught, Denis Leary put it so well:


What chance do these children have to be anything more than their parents? I do not even want to think about the pain and anguish that one of their children will go through if they grow up and find themselves to be LGBTQ.

What does the Bible say about judging and the law

---

One of the most famous quotes from the Christian Bible on this subject is the King James Version of Matthew 7:1; "Judge not, that ye be not judged", but look at what follows it.

7 Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves.

2 For just as you judge and criticize and condemn others, you will be judged and criticized and condemned, and in accordance with the measure you [use to] deal out to others, it will be dealt out again to you.

3 Why do you stare from without at the very small particle that is in your brother’s eye but do not become aware of and consider the beam of timber that is in your own eye?

4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam of timber in your own eye?

5 You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-5 (AMP)
My experience is that this is proven true by the realization that what we dislike and hate in others, hence judge as wrong, are nothing but the reflection of what we dislike and hate within ourselves. No, I am not accusing the members of the Westboro Baptist Church of being homosexual (gay men everywhere are breathing a large sigh of relief).

Some say that we dislike and hate what we do not know and that causes fear, but I think that is more a response to our sense of lack in knowledge and experience and most people hate having fear within themselves.

People like the members of Westboro and sadly others who are just looking for justification for their distrust of anything different often use the Law of Moses and the Levitican Code as their weapon of choice.

They almost always pick and choose which parts are valid, the parts that address themselves are overlooked; their favorite foods (bacon, ham, shrimp and lobster), the availability of cheap cool clothing from Walmart (mixed threads), cheaper meats (non-Kosher), touching the skin of dead pigs (football), etc. My personal favorite is that I have yet to meet the Christian man who has the balls to put his wife out during her monthly menses.

It has become the common belief that the Law of Moses is there by God's direct intent, literally the will of God, but Jesus tells us that is not necessarily the case:

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:8 (KJV)
So we know that parts of the law are there by the knowing of Moses, not by God's decree, how do we determine which is which?

The answer is a few chapters away, Jesus not only tells us the basic framework for all the law , but gives us a direct key to its implementation:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:35-40 (KJV)
emphasis mine
If you apply the Law through the filter of Love, you will never use it as a tool of destruction against another, how would you honestly bludgeon your brother to death in the name of love?

"The 65" and the true power in the USA

"The 99" are the people that have been left behind by the few with all the money and power in our country, though I suspect it has become a cancer throughout our modern world.

Sadly, there are a third who have drunk so much of the Kool-Aid that they will never be willing or able to see that they are slaves in the deepest of bondage. In the days of African slavery in this country, there was the expression of the "House Nigger" who believed they had the best their life could offer, maybe they did for the world and time they lived in, but they were so tied to this belief they would never be willing to act against their bondage.

This third will listen to their Corporate Masters and do as they are told for a collection of reasons that will mainly be nothing but justifications of their fear of rocking the boat, their belief that they do have some life and their fear that it could be worse. It very well may be that they are eternally lost; that their belief in what has happened to them is truly just, they are to be pitied and held up as examples of what the 1% has done, do not hate them for they are lambs that have succumb to the indoctrination they are for slaughter on the alters of greed and power.

"The 65" can change the nation!

The 1% may hold the money and power to flood the market with their message, "The 65" still carry the majority where it truly counts, the ability to actually cast a vote. This is why the 1% are trying so hard to exclude people from being able to exercise their right to cast that vote.

It will require taking a chance for electing people who care about you, even if they do not share all your beliefs and opinions. The media is owned and operated by the Masters and that small percentage that is not, lives under the tyranny of having their advertising revenues cut by the other side of the same Board Rooms that own the rest of the Media. It truly is a leviathan that we have allowed to grow on Wall St and in Washington, amongst other places.

The simple fact is that in the long run, this is a war of attrition, they cannot win this battle unless "The 65" or "The 99" let them.

"In 1917 Gandhi said that the people's victory against the British was a mathematical certainty. "100,000 English cannot control 35 million Indians who choose to disobey." Two years later, in April 1919, after the British proposed new laws which would deny Indians basic civil liberties, Gandhi demonstrated this power of disobedience by calling for a "national day of prayer and fasting" which had the effect of a national strike. He understood the power of right and the power of non-cooperation, and used them successfully for the first time."

"Mohandas Gandhi: The Art of Nonviolence"
by Peter N. Herndon
This simple idea brought the British Empire to its knees, the very same principle will throw our attempted Masters into a tailspin, for the 1% is only three-million people, of which I suspect the actual brokers are far less than that, but before you think that is so much and impossible, "The 65" are around 200,000,000.

Calling "The 65" to take action...

I call on "The 65" to unify under the banner of reclaiming our Nation, removing the Masters and what they have been allowed to become through our negligence as a nation. Some will be Christian, others will not be, some will support the right of a woman to choose while others will not, some will support Love in whatever its form and celebrate it with all the rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations of marriage and yet others will not. These are the illusions used to control you for if you truly believe in American Freedom, it cannot be just yours alone, but the freedom for others to choose differently; without this, it is not freedom, but hypocrisy.

Throw off the chains of your Masters and use that large mass of grey matter that your God or evolution put there for a reason, not just to keep our heads from imploding.

You want an idea of just how simple it is to have a bloodless-coup? If "The 65" can get together and vote for the big picture and not get lost in the divisiveness that will be used to manipulate and control them, in as little as six years the entire system can be overthrown without a single act of violence. It should actually be much faster than that, this is actually a worst case scenario. In reality, a single election in 2012 with a united voice will change enough of the current structure to force them to change on their own.

"The 65" and the NEW Revolution

Changing this country does not require a Revolution of Blood in the traditional sense, the blood that counts is not red, but in America it is the blood of the green; that is the second way you bring them into control, their bottom lines, but that is for another day and another time.

Think about where the power of "The 65" can be applied, work with your fellow countrymen, they may not agree in all things, but they do agree with you on the big issue reclaiming the United States from the 1% minority, that is where the war really is.

Loving an Opposing Inspiration

Earlier today, I ran into someone on Facebook that I had not heard from in ages, Joni Eareckson Tada. Now it turns out that it is really more of a fan-page as she does not actively participate from the look of it.

When I was a kid, I ran across the book "Joni" which touched me in a way that few books ever have. It is the story of a young woman, Joni Eareckson, with everything ahead of her that has a diving accident one summer and ends up a quadriplegic and her coming to grips with that and the skills she found after-wards. I was so impressed with her artwork that I used to own a piece many years ago.

I had the pleasure of meeting her in 1981 during my great Southern California adventure that I have written about in the past.

One of the things that surprised me was the near immediate response that I received from several friends that were shocked that I would "Like" her since she is a signer on the Manhattan Declaration, a call for assorted Christian members to not comply with laws against their religious beliefs in areas like abortion and same-sex marriage. I believe that I had heard about it on the news, but I did not pay it any heed, why should I?

One of the areas that the Christian Right has never understood is that a law saying such things may happen do not require you to partake in them. I have always found it somewhat laughable to listen to people who act as if legalizing same-sex marriage means straight men are going to be required to do so or that Roe v. Wade is going to force women to have abortions.

We seem to have developed a culture in this country where if someone disagrees on any one subject, especially a hot button topic, that we are supposed to shun them and disavow any knowledge, friendship or support. I will not do it.

I have found Joni to be a shining star in my life who made me rethink many things in my life over the years and a pillar of strength when I have had tough times, no matter how bad, I still have functional arms and legs.

One of the pieces of the book I have always remembered was a place where Joni's power-wheelchair tipped over in a parking lot and she scraped her face quite badly. Her reply was something like; "why my face, the only place I can feel?" I have had days like that where it was like why this one thing when it was so important, at least in that moment.

I may not agree with everything she thinks and may even be diametrically opposed in some, but that will never take away from the respect I have for her in so many other areas of her life.

Many of the friends that responded badly felt that I had betrayed them, I would say that I have proven my worthiness as a friend in that I will stand by them when they do something I disagree with, it will take more than one thing to get rid of me.

I would say that it is more Christian to show love and compassion for someone against you on some issue than many self-proclaimed Christians offer to those who differ from them. It is easy to love someone who is always with you, but it takes a bit of work to get beyond some disagreement and still be there for them. I believe Jesus commented on this when he talked about loving ones enemies.

---

To Joni,

My heartfelt appreciation for your story, your beautiful artwork and for making a young man feel welcome when the opportunity presented itself nearly 30 years ago.

My prayers and hopes, along with Reiki healing energy, to help you get through this troubling time with your recent diagnosis.

Shanti,

Robert

Some cheese for that whine?

As much as I enjoy people sharing with me, I find that I get a bit short with them when all they are doing is whining about this, that and the other.

People in general seem to be predisposed to whining and complaining and not really being interested in actually doing something... I sometimes wonder where we learned this, I don't think it is our nature.

---

I was having a somewhat heated conversation with a friend about ways in which we can make the world around us a better place and become responsible members of society.

As often happens, the question was raised as to what difference a single individual can make against six-billion uninterested persons and corporate neglect in the search of short-term profits?

The question was recurrent, in many forms and from several direction, the general underlying perception seemed to be a collection of how terrible things truly are and a plethora of excuses as to why there was little to no reason to actually act and a general justification to be just as selfish as the "rest of them."

Somewhere we learn all about what we do not want, we will fight against this or that "wrongness" but we never seem to be similarly motivated to act for some right or good thing.

Over the last 9 years we have seen a collection of protests (probably a sign it's headed in the wrong direction right there) against the wars in the Middle East, against the passage and court ruling that allowed California Proposition 8 to stand (a curious question that is almost as bizzar as the US Supreme Court case of Bush vs Gore in 2000).

Mother Theresa understood the idea that I am alluding to, when she said, "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there."

When we talk about the Law of Attraction (LoA) one of the concepts that we MUST become familiar with is that the Universe is vast and grand, but in some ways, not so bright.

The Universe assumes that if we don't want something, we would not put any energy into it. Sadly the opposite is usually true, we spend the majority of our thought and energy on exactly that, what we don't want, hence we keep manifesting what it is we don't want.

For example, many years ago I took a class in Beginning Witchcraft, during which (Sorry, I couldn't pass it up) one of my fellow students asked me to help her with a "Money Draw" spell. The teacher of the class was a bit miffed, as it was the full moon and she asked how I was going to do this type of spell during a waning moon.

For those not familiar with what I'm talking about, traditionally, one does magic that causes growth at the New Moon so that as it waxes, gets larger, the object also enlarges. Conversely, banishings are done at the Full Moon so that things get smaller along with the Moon.

I told the teacher that what I was planning to do was actually a Banishment of Poverty. She was fairly impressed, she never thought of it that way. Today, I probably wouldn't do it this way, since we were focusing on what we didn't want, but it made sense at the time.

---

So the next time you find yourself sitting around and complaining about what is wrong in the world and your life, take a moment and figure out what cheese to serve with your whine, I like Gouda and Feta.

An Open Letter

I don't know what insanity took over me to actually send this, but I just mailed the following letter to 365Gay.com's submission department, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Hello,

I am a life coach and spiritual teacher, not a legal scholar in any sense of the word, but I have been wondering about this legal question ever since I heard about the ballot initiative that became Prop. 8 after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop. 22.

If there is any validity to the questions, I would appreciate if this could be forwarded to someone who could put it to good use.

As you know, in 2000 California voters passed Proposition 22 which placed the following text into the California Family Code as Section 308.5:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This single line of text was overturned by the California Supreme Court as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

Proposition 8 placed the exact same text, literally, into the State Constitution as Article I, Section 7.5. Now the questions are as follows...

1. Since this line of code has been determined to be in violation, does it cease to be in violation now?
   
   
2. Does it make a difference that this exact code was found to be invalid before it was even qualified as a ballot initiative? I think this may be the first time that a law has been added after being declared unconstitutional.
   
   
3. In what ways would this invalidate Proposition 8 and if nothing else, does this create any kind of Constitutional Crisis since it introduces an ambiguity into the Constitution?
   
   
4. If the above is correct, how does one go about bringing this to the attention of of the Supreme Court, or whatever process this has to go through to have it ruled upon?

I have heard several cases are being brought into the court, but they seem to the same old cases that never seem to go very far very fast. This would seem to be the most direct and expedient path if it is valid.

Once again, if this is of any validity, would you please send it on to anyone who can make use of it.

Thank you,

Robert A. Burgener

We will see if I get any responses...

End of A Season

Tuesday is finally over and we have a new President of the United States.

Congrats to President-elect Obama on a substantive victory. I may not be your biggest fan, but I did vote for you over Senator McCain.

Here in California, there were several initiatives, there are ALWAYS several, to look at and while most were bond measures, and there were a couple that caught my interest.

Proposition 8:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

California Proposition 8, a law that is identical to one that was declared as unconstitutional, was passed by a narrow margin. There is a slim chance that it will not go through when the absentee ballots are counted, in California the absentee ballots tend to be more liberal or progressive than conservative, we will see…

If Proposition 8 should pass, there is a question that I have about the constitutionality of it as follows. Last May I wrote a blog entry titled “Same-sex Marriage & the Conservative Right” where I mentioned the lack of difference between previous Proposition 22 which put the exact same text into the California Family Code as Proposition 8 puts into the California Constitution.

The California Supreme Court threw the Family Code law out since they determined that it violated the “Equal Protection” clause of the State Constitution. So my question becomes this, does inserting it into the Constitution make it constitutional since it still violates the “Equal Protection” clause? Some would say yes, but I wonder about what challenges could be made since this text was already determined to be unconstitutional. It’s one of those legal questions that make some lawyers go hmmmm……

The other aspect of Proposition 8 was the campaign that was used to get voters to go along with it. I would have expected the usual “restore traditional marriage” ads of the past, but I did not see one pro-8 ad that dealt with anything other than same-sex marriage being taught in schools. If you did not read anything else about the proposition, one might have thought that Proposition 8 was about educational curriculum.

The initial ad discussed that in Massachusetts a teacher used a book, showing one called “King & King”, and when some parents balked they were told that they had no right to protest the curriculum or to pull there child out of class.

The case itself, Parker v. Hurley, the premise was that they were not notified of materials they found offensive; from the brief:

In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a "Diversity Book Bag." This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, "Who's in a family?": "The people who love you the most!" The book says nothing about marriage.

Where this case fell apart legally was that the law they sued under to block this requires notification and an opportunity to exempt their children from "curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues." This has been interpreted as sex education and other related classes. The subject of the class was "what makes a family" which the courts determined did not qualify under this law.

This is not how the case was presented in the advertising for the pro-8 position. Sadly, this is hardly the exception but has started to become the rule as of late. Another good example of this is the so-called Texas Sodomy case where you here the far-right saying that sodomy is now legal in the State of Texas.

If one actually looks into the case, you find that sodomy has always been legal in the State of Texas if you are a heterosexual couple and the law that was challenged and eventually dismissed was only making it criminal for same-sex couples.

I sometimes wonder when we will start requiring political campaigns to actually be direct and honest to the subject. I mean sure there will be some mention of same-sex marriage in schools when it becomes legal, but the proposition has nothing to do with education.

Proposition 4:

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

This is a situation that required much thought to decide on my vote.

What made this so tough for me was that where there is a certain validity to the idea that not all families are positive experiences for a young girl and it may be difficult for her to discuss an unwanted pregnancy with her family, I also wonder just how much of a right to information the parents have?

In this country, we tend to hold parents as the responsible parties for the actions of their minor children. If a child vandalizes a neighbors property, the parents are the ones who are obligated to reimburse the damages. In some places, if a student does not go to school, the parent can be fined for the truancy.

If we are going to hold parents accountable for the actions of their children, how can we expect them to do this when we keep denying their right to know what their child is doing under the auspices of "right to privacy" for said minor?

How I voted is between myself and the booth, but this was something that made me think.

In case you don't live in California, Proposition 4 did not pass by a 52% to 47% margin.

A warning between now and November 4, 2008

The California Supreme Court's lifting of the Same-Sex Marriage ban and its expected repercussions, both in California and Nationwide this November, reminded me of a joke I heard as a kid...

A farmer was at the market and while passing some livestock, looked down and saw a large, masculine rooster with wonderful plumage and features. The gentleman selling the chickens assured the farmer that the animal of his affection was an excellent replacement for the elderly one he had at home.

The farmer bought the animal and upon arriving home, set the rooster loose in the yard. After a short while, it spotted the old rooster and started to attack and become the head of the flock.

The other rooster may have been old and past his prime, but his intelligence was still sharp. As the young rooster approached he managed to stop him and said, "Listen, you don't have to kill me. I won't get in your way, I just want to live out the rest of my days in peace."

The younger rooster was stopped for a moment, but then asked, "and how do you expect to do that?"

"I'll tell you what I have in mind," the elder went on, "I cannot fight you, so lets do this the easy way and we both can get what we want. When the farmer comes out, you start chasing me around the yard and after a bit, I'll fall down and play dead. The farmer will throw me out and onto the trash heap, voilà, we both win. I can sneak away and enjoy my golden years and you get this lovely brood of hens."

The young rooster thought about this for a moment and decided that it was a lot easier than having to fight this old-timer. So he agreed.

Later that afternoon, the farmer came out of the house and almost immediately, the young rooster started chasing after his elder while squawking and making all sorts of noises.

The farmer seeing this cussed under his breath and went back into the house and grabbing his shotgun, took aim and bang shot the young rooster.

While reloading the gun, the old rooster heard the farmer muttering to himself, "Damn it, third queer bird this month."

Though this blog is not really about politics, the fact is that between the Religious Right (ick) and the Republican Party, both have learned that is much easier to manipulate the public through their fears and hatreds than to take a chance by stating actual positions and take the chance of making a mistake or alienating someone.

The upcoming elections will likely be a PhD in manipulation and the fear of "Radical Muslim" attacks is likely to be brought up and I wouldn't be surprised if we start having changes in the "Terror Alert" system, you remember that do you not? Just before any vote that would benefit the Republican platform and be debated out easily, would be proceeded by the latest raising of the "Terror Alert Level," we spent nearly 3 years being conditioned like Pavlov's dog to do whatever Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted by this technique. It's basic Fear 101.

If this were not despicable enough behaviour, now the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell clones can spend the next several months going on about how we must save marriage from the homosexual agenda and such silliness.

---

The point I am trying to get across is that no matter what your beliefs, religious or political, expect many people to try and sway your position, including this piece. At least I am honest about it and I am only trying to warn you that others will use much more "knee-jerk" techniques that have shown to be very effective in this country.

Elections and voting in general are serious things, take the time to get more than sound bytes that do not give a complete position. If a political message evokes a strong response, whichever way, look into it, find out who put it out and what are their objectives. Many corporations are going to be gunning for Democrats because they fear the reversal of tax credits and possible increased taxation on some of their insane profits, like the energy companies in particular.

So be awake, be aware and definitely engage your brain, unless you think that those decisions should be taken out of your hands. There are many people and groups out their who are interested only in their positions and don't care about anything else, don't help them unless you agree with those positions.

And so it begins...

A month ago, I wrote about the fact that the California Supreme Court determined that discrimination along the lines of "separate but equal" had been overturned and Same-Sex Couples would be allowed to legally use the term "marriage" and as of 5:01pm today, it has taken affect.


I just finished watching the first same-sex couple in Los Angeles, Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, together for over fifteen years, get married on the steps of the Beverly Hills courthouse where they had been denied a marriage license every Valentines Day for the last eight years they had applied for it.

In San Francisco, the mayor of that city was also performing a marriage of a couple that had been together for fifty-five years; Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84.

Of course some closed-minded pin-head, not very enlightened of me, but when you hear someone yell "you will be burning in Hell" during a ceremony, I loose my perspective a bit. Agree with it or not, have some respect, but if there is anything that the Religious Right (ick - they are not right and if they would actually read their Bibles, they would know it.) has shown, neither respect for differing opinions or common courtesy can be expected from them, sad is it not?

The part of this whole argument that really gets to me from the, self-proclaimed, moralists is that with all their arguments, they obviously have no idea what a marriage is supposed to be. It's not about the genders of the parties involved, but commitment to become two who come together as one.

May all those in the Gay and Lesbian community that decide to enter into marriage do so for the right reasons, love and commitment, and in time, maybe we can show these closed-minded individuals what a marriage is supposed to be.

Would it not be hilarious if we turned out to be better at keeping marriages together than our Christian brothers and sisters who think we will be the death of marriage?

Same-sex Marriage & the Conservative Right

The California Supreme Court today overturned California Proposition 22, from the 2000 election, which attempted to define that only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state.

SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "California Defense of Marriage Act."

SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Of course the traditionalists and the religious right are not going to be happy in the slightest about this and I completely expect that the usual claims that this is going to destroy marriage is on the horizon. I also expect that Pat Robertson will be having a mental meltdown on Friday's edition of the 700 Club, more on him and a few of his recent statements later.

I am sure that the religious right was not taken completely by surprise since they have been gathering 1.1 million signatures to qualify a state constitutional amendment to deny same-sex marriage, Initiative 07-0068.

SECTION 1. This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Section 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The actual text is identical, but by adding it to the state's Constitution, the current ruling would be trumped.

We could go into the lower arguments that the very people that claim same-sex marriage will destroy the institution also have some of the highest divorce rates and little regard for marriage outside their personal interest, but let's look at a few of the "better" arguments that I have heard as of late.

Pat Robertson has never really been one of my favorite people, but as of late he has developed a near Ph.D. in "hoof in mouth" disease. Here is an excellent example...


Other than the usual fear tactics of what "gay and trans-gendered" people are going to do and the other usual verbal diarrhea, my favorites are as follows with the time marks for interesting places to look.

1:04-1:50	:	Pat feels that maximum of 2% of the population is "gay" and 1% are "lesbian" so it is acceptable to discriminate against this nominal number since they do not make up 10-20%.
2:21-2:47	:	Though he hasn't the courage to actually say it, he feels that marriage is only about reproduction since he has repeatedly stated that when two men or two women can procreate, he would be willing to reconsider his objection to same-sex marriage. This argument has always made me wonder why these people claim this argument when they would never refuse a heterosexual couple the privilege of marriage if they had no intent to have children, by choice, biology or age...
2:47-3:10	:	"The reason we protect marriage is children." OK, so let's change the laws so that marriage is only available to couples having children and dissolve said marriages when the children are no longer at home.

These so called objections are not really arguments, but simple excuses that non-thinking individuals will accept. Pat and those like him are more than happy to condemn people in "cults" for drinking the arsenic laced kool-aid, but when it comes to there own poison laden kool-aid, drink and be happy...

oh yes and "saved."

Gay Pride and Sour Grapes (maybe...)

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
Some harsh language is in this post

Last weekend was the Christopher Street West Pride Festival in West Hollywood. I skipped the parade and only went to the festival for a couple of hours which also means that I skipped the annual attack of the "fundies" aka Christian Fundamentalists.

I just wasn't in the mood to be swamped by, a reported, 300,000 people. On top of that, I have really felt a bit out of sync with the WeHo gay community the last few years.

As much as I enjoy having it there and available for those infrequent occasions that I feel like drinking and dancing, the fact is that is that as far as WeHo is concerned, I have been categorized as completely un-fuckable. Since I am over 30, don't have a perfect body and/or more money than God, the boys want to play with with other little playthings like themselves.

As much as I like to stick it to the Christian Right in this country about their judgemental bullshit, their argument of homosexuality and immorality has a basis in fact, though not in the way they think of and some of it is their own fault as well.

If there is an inherent immorality in being gay, it's not in the gender of whom you sleep with, but why. With the fundie fight to deny gay people the right of marriage and in many places the attempts to deny them even the rights of a civil-union, the fundamentalists leave gay people with no way to be anything but fornicators. With the laws being what they currently are, there is no solution except to maybe be celibate (I don't think so).

If anyone has any doubts that heterosexuals would be just as sexually promiscuous if they didn't have to worry about pregnancy, well they are just kidding themselves. Straight or Gay, men are men and as someone once said, "A stiff prick hath no morals."

Back when President Clinton was attempting to open military service to openly gay and lesbian people, I heard a radio talk show where someone called in and asked why straights hated gays so much. No I can't remember who it was that said it, but their response was amazing, it went like this:

Straight men are afraid that Gay men will do to them,
what Straight men have been doing to women for the past 10,000 years.

Now, I know no straight men that would admit it, but I do know a few who have commented that gays have it lucky to get laid and not have to worry about creating the proverbial "bun in the oven."

I chat with many people on the internet and amongst the gay ones, they nearly always tell me that they would love a long-term, committed relationship with that someone special. The sad part is when you meet them in person, they fall back into the trappings of gay cultural ideas such as needing to get laid on the first date or there is no second one. Too bad, I rarely sleep with someone I don't know.

Such things kind of remind me of a scene from the movie "Latter Days". One of the characters, a pretty party-boy named Christian has brought some guy, named Mort, home and Mort started rimming him and Christian asks if they could talk a bit. Mort misunderstands and starts talking dirty. Christian tells him that isn't what he meant and explains that he wants some conversation. Mort seems to think that would be a bit to intimate to which Christian responds; "a moment ago you were practically tonguing my spleen, but a little conversation is too intimate?" Mort thinks Christian is too kinky and leaves, as strange as that sounds, it's not that far from the truth in a strange sort of way.

Now don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less what others choose to do in the privacy of their own lives, but if we are going to fight for the rights and privileges of marriage, wouldn't it be a good idea to show some personal responsibility in our community?

There are some who say that part of it has to do with our stunted sexual growth as gay people in a predominantly straight world. Straight guys just can't seem to get the idea that while they were changing from girls being gross and vulgar "things" to something of attraction, they could stare, flirt and work their way through whatever personal issues they may have had and work their way to asking them out. At the same time, gay youth are going through much the same, but they are quickly finding out that those unlike themselves are potentially dangerous to them socially if not in some cases physically. They learn to hide and do not get to grow through the "awkward" stages. When they finally get to the point where they come out and find a community of like people, they tend to act out with a vengeance. Sadly, many never really grow out of it and end up feeling like an outcast amongst the young and beautiful.

Let us as gay, lesbian and trans-gendered people start to grow beyond what we have been and grow into what we may be. In many cultures, homosexuality was not only accepted, but celebrated. In some cultures, the trans-gendered were celebrated and considered to be an omen of goodness. Let us remember we don't have to be the stereotypical "gay" anymore than we were the expectation of heterosexuality.

Life, Love and Lance Bass

OK, I'm going to start off with the disclosure that Lance Bass has always been my favorite member of 'N Sync and once again, my gaydar was complete right about someone I don't know (strange, why can't it do that when I cruise in real life?). In case you are wondering, the first one was Greg Louganis and not in '84 when everyone fell for him. I first ran into Greg many years earlier when he was on the cover of the Boy Scout's magazine "Boy's Life" sometime in the late 70's. I had such a crush on him... Who knew years later, we would both grow up to be gay and former scouts?

I happened to be wandering around the internet the other day, when I noticed that there was a blurb that Lance Bass and his boyfriend, Reichen Lehmkuhl, had broken up. I dropped him a note via his myspace page with my condolences and holiday greeting as well as a congrats on his coming out (takes more guts then any straight can imagine, even in today's world). Now they, TMZ, say they may be getting back together. Hope springs eternal for 2 reasons that immediately come to mind.

Firstly, they make a really cute couple and it would be nice to see Lance beat the odds on his first(?) relationship actually lasting and not falling apart, but that might just be the hopeless romantic in me.

Secondly, depending on what he wants, Lance as a single man would either be the luckiest or unluckiest man in LA (OK, others are in the same position as well). LA (OK, West Hollywood in particular) is a city where everyone dances with their eye on the door looking for the next "best thing" to walk in.

If he's looking for "hook-ups", he's going to have the easiest time getting cute, hot guys to be able to bed. Good-looking guys will be falling all over themselves to sleep with him (Am I just a little jealous? Oh, hell yes! ;-P ).

If he's looking for something else, say a real relationship, he's going find it difficult to say the least. Los Angeles has never been the best place to find a good man, as Cameron Diaz's character says in "Charlie's Angels" during a fight scene with the bad girl, who has just broken her cell phone:

"Do you know how hard it is to find a quality man in Los Angeles?"

Dear, if you think it's tough as a straight woman, you should count your blessings you are not gay.

I sometimes wonder if the real reason straight men are so terrified of gay men (OK, they wouldn't call it that) is really from jealousy that, reputedly, gay men are about getting laid constantly. Now, I will be the first to admit that a lot of men are in that mental place, gay or straight (look at Tom Leykis). It can be fun for a while and as long as one plays safely, I think it's a natural part of growing up. For a gay man, having had to suppress one's true identity, seems to explode with an attempt to reclaim our lost youth via our sexual escapades.

Eventually, hopefully, we realize that sex for sex' sake is not really going do it in the long run. If we don't learn it, we get awfully depressed when we can't get laid to save the world as we get older. As much as I hate to admit it, in my 20's I was completely screwed up about sex and in my 30's fairly disinterested and now in my 40's looking for what it is I was really looking for in sex, companionship and someone to share a life with.

As a mystic, I am quite aware that there is little that this world can offer that would bring true happiness, but there is one item that I will continue to want, even when it makes me miserable; a partner. The rest of it you can have, money, fame and all the other crap that this world offers. I know it for the illusion that it is and while having "things" isn't so bad, I've been without them in the past and somehow I managed to survive.

If thinking about Lance wasn't enough, now Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is expecting and because she is a lesbian, many members of the Religious-Right (neither) are voicing their objections. I heard one say that she was denying her child the "god-given right to both a father and a mother." Somehow, I suspect that the baby won't care what chromosomes the parental units have, he/she will just enjoy being loved and that is what "family values" are all about.

The question of same sex marriage comes up and think about what it would mean when it comes to both of these.

For Lance and every other gay man, we would have something more than sexual prowess to strive for since there would be a goal that could be looked toward. If you are going to label people perverts for having sex outside of marriage, you have to allow them something more, otherwise, you are talking out your ass.

For Mary Cheney, her child will never have the legal protections for the family that a straight couple would have. They reside in Virginia and with the laws there and in several other states, Mary's partner, Heather, will have no legal claim to the child if something should happen to Mary. This is family values? God, I hope not.

Well, if nothing else, we wish our best for Lance in the future and give our congrats to Mary and Heather on their expected bundle of joy.

A Personal History of these X-ians

The following is a copy of a post that I made to a site I stumbled across called God Hates Westboro Baptist Church. The sight is a recent startup commenting on the collection of "God Hates..." sites this so called church runs.

Enjoy!

---

I use the title of X-ians in the same way that X-mas is used to remove Christ from the holiday. These people are not Christians (meaning to be Christlike) by any teaching of Jesus' that I am aware of.

I have had a fairly long history with these people over the years. I believe the first time I heard from them was from a group of Fundies at the West Hollywood Gay Pride Fest where I was given a tract and if the name hadn't been so offensive, I would most likely thrown it away.

At the time, I had a job that allowed me plenty of time to surf the web and work on my personal projects. One night I spent several hours going through their website and seeing many things I remembered from telling my parents about me...

I grew up a Southern Baptist on the northern edge of the Bible Belt.

After reading the vast majority of the site, I realized a few interesting details:

• They subscribe to the theology of predestined salvation. Basically, this idea says that we come into the world with salvation predetermined and if you are not one of the selected, too bad. You will never be able to get into heaven.


• The quote: "God does not hate them because they are homosexuals; they are homosexuals because God hates them."


• The quote: "When people go to funerals, they have thoughts of mortality, heaven, hell, eternity, etc., on their minds. It's the perfect time to warn them of things to come."

After the last 2 in particular, I was curious about an apparent contradiction in their theology. So, like the trusting idiot I have been known to be on occasion, I sent them a very polite e-mail asking how they justified it.

Basically, I asked "if I'm Gay because God hates me and there is no way for me to get into heaven because he has washed his hands of me as you state in your FAQ, why show up at funerals and basically rub salt into the wound, little less depriving me of what little joy I might find in this life since, by your understanding of the scripture, I'm damned eternally?"

Now, to be honest, I never really expected a conversation or much beyond maybe a curt thank you with a few misrepresented verses. What I got instead was an e-mail account that started being flooded with junk mail till my provider asked me to change the address. Now I can't prove it came from them, but most of it was of the same high-brow caliber as the site itself.

For those of you who may not be familiar, these are the people that showed up at Matthew Shepard and is currently showing up at fallen soldiers funerals (with their recent site GodHatesAmerica.com) since as a nation we are now hated by God for being tolerant of homosexuals amongst other ideas.

The sad fact is that these people actually mean well, they just worship a god of hatred and judgment and are in need or our love and saintly attempts not to squish them into oblivion. 8-P Seriously, they need our pity more than our retaliation.

If we judge them as harshly as they judge others, what do we do but lower ourselves to their level and become infected with the same venom that has won their hearts and souls?

Spirit Geek

Pride and Gay Pride pt 2 [Essay]

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that there are basically 3 types of homosexuals:

1. Biological
2. Selective
3. Psychological
   

Biological homosexuals came into the world the way that they are. Be it God or genetics, they were decided from day one what they would grow into.

Selective homosexuals are people who have honestly chosen to be Gay. I know many women who have followed this path after horrid relations with men where they were raped, molested, abused, etc. I have met very few men that seem to fall into this category.

Psychological homosexuals are living in a mistaken state. People in this state usually grew up being called such things as "mamma's boy," "queer," "girlie boy" and such and after a time, they began to believe it, hence they never find true happiness since they are accidentally living a lie. These are the people who programs like Exodus, amongst others, get their claimed successes. Though, like the founders of Exodus, some of their success has not lasted due to the fact the an unhappy person can make himself do nearly anything for a while, just like gay men who marry women and later come out.

I think I am from the first category, biological.

I always sensed that I was different, but didn't know exactly how until I was about six or seven years old. About that time, a group of friends and I were playing in a local park when we came across a box of Playboys. Being young boys, we immediately took them off to someplace to inspect the booty, a tree house.

I saw the pictures of the naked women and thought most of them were quite pretty, but that was all. My friends were completely enamored and it was obvious that they found it much more interesting than I did. I really did read the jokes page and part of some interview and maybe a bit of Xaviera Hollander's column, I remember the lipstick in the shape of a penis as well as the title "The Happy Hooker".

I didn't think that much about it at the time, as it wasn't the first time that I had reacted to something differently than my friends.

A few months later, we were in the same park and we found another box of magazines, only this time, there were some Hustler and other more graphic magazines than Playboy.

I was looking through a Hustler and saw a spread of a couple all done up in silver lamé in various poses and it was the first time I ever saw a naked man with an erection. Immediately, I knew what my friends had been going on about the last time we had found these and after hearing the word "faggot" thrown around, I knew it would be most prudent to keep this to myself. Peer pressure and cultural prejudices had already been planted within and were bearing fruit (pun intended).

Now is going to come a confession that I never would have expected to make, the man in the photo spread was Ron Jeremy. Now I have nothing against the man and in fact have heard that he is a totally cool dude and amazingly real, but he has NEVER been my type in any way shape or form, but he was my introduction to men en rampant.

I remember my early crushes on boys from school and I nearly failed gym a few times because I was terrified of showering after class for fear of sprouting wood. I have known many girls and women in my life, but I have never found myself sexually attracted to one.

When I was about 14 or 15, after my mother died and my dad remarried, I had a few issues with what was going on, so we entered family counseling, but I was the only one that went on a regular basis. The psychologist one day asked me if I was gay, or a homosexual. I said "No!" You see at this time, the only images of gay men I had other than kid insults were sick old men in Chicago who molested little boys and then, after killing them, buried under the house. I couldn't kill anyone, so there was no way I could be a homosexual. So when he followed the first question with an inquiry as to if I knew what a homosexual was, I had the same answer. He explained it to me and I realized that was the word that described me; as well as faggot and queer.

At one time I thought I might think I was gay since I had never slept with a woman. So, I made the decision that if the opportunity presented itself and she was someone I could care about, I'd try it. Well, it did and so did I and well (my female friends: please don't be offended or upset with me) but I could have more fun with a bowl of warm Jell-O. It was what it was, but it was quite obvious to both of us that while I could function, I wasn't going to be happy about it, even though in that moment in time, I wanted to be.

I can't help but laugh when people call it a choice. While it might be for a small minority, for most of us, we spend a fair amount of our lives kicking and screaming against this piece of self-discovery. Why would anyone "choose" to be a social pariah? I had someone tell me (actually, I've heard this on many occasions) that homosexuals are in the business of recruiting people since we cannot breed on our own as if we were a dying race, slated for extinction. Strange, even when people have had to live amazingly closeted lives and barely acknowledged it to themselves, they came across others of like orientation.

We are VERY familiar with the pains of trying to live being what we are not. We would have to be amazingly hateful people to convince others via recruitment to live a life that isn't what they were intended to be by their maker. Sure, there are some people who are selfish enough to try that, but contrary to the idea that I was taught, that mankind is inherently evil due to original sin, I see too much evidence that is not truly the case.

On September 11th, 2001 the world watched a small group of people do amazingly terrible acts in the name of God as they saw him. From the majority of the world's view this was an incredibly selfish and misguided act that would be expected from the original sin, man is evil crowd. If man truly was that way, then there would have been no heroes out of firemen and police, amongst others, to try and save anyone or thing other than their own skin. You have to be truly good at the core of your essence and being to do that kind of a job, little less after watching the aftermath. Sure, man has a tendency to be amazingly selfish in the day-to-day living of his life, but I think that is truly a learned behavior than his true nature. People consistently show their inherent goodness when it really counts. Maybe, it's time that we learned to make it the core of our day-to-day life as well...

I sometimes wonder why there is so much animosity from straight men toward gay. Maybe I am just simple-minded, but I always assumed that the problem was rooted in the nature of humans to judge, fear and hate that which they do not understand.

I remember a few years ago during the early years of the Clinton administration when he was addressing the issue of gays in the military, we won't get into what I think of the outcome ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell"). I was listening to some radio talk show and I have no idea who was being interviewed, but when asked why straight men seem to hate gay men so much, the person being interviewed said "Straight men are afraid that gay men will do to straight men what straight men have been doing to women for thousands of years." I loved that.

Earlier this evening, I was thinking about it and I had an interesting thought. It occurred to me that in nearly every culture that has such strong religious taboos are very much patriarchal societies that control property, power and inheritance through the men. Women may own some property, but the men are the ones endowed with the ability to control it. Cultural taboos and religious morality laws usually have some justifiable reason behind them and I was thinking that the union of 2 men would result in the creation of a very powerful business interest in an early culture. With 2 power yielding individuals, both able to make binding arrangements and work together collectively, you would definitely have a force to be reckoned with and that in time could quite easily become taboo for all the wrong reasons.

It's worth thinking about.

I think of it this way: most of us 'noids are so bad at loving anything other than ourselves (and some barely do that) that who are we to judge how others love. I tell people that when mankind in general learns to truly love everyone and everything, then and only then might God grant us the privilege to judge what forms it may take. Until then, we're making fools of ourselves, showing just how far from God we have become.

Pride and Gay Pride pt 1 [Essay]

Yesterday was the Christopher Street West (a.k.a. The West Hollywood Gay Pride) Parade and Festival. As usual, I went to the parade but skipped the festival itself this year. For those who have never been, it's a blast and definitely worth checking out at least once.

I could go into it's history and how it came to be, but if you are interested, they seem to do a pretty good job of recalling all that on their site.

Also as usual, I started my day with stumbling across the fundies (as I so nicely call them) a group of people who like to say they are there to love me by pounding home the idea that I am going to Hell for being gay. Well, as to that, I figure if God didn't want me to be gay, he shouldn't have made me that way. Just as heterosexuals never chose to be straight, I never chose to be gay either.

As is usual, they had the normal selection of Bible verses to quote from, though 2 come from Leviticus, they feel its fine to eat shellfish and their wives let them leave the house wearing cottons and wools and when was the last time ANY of them declared their wives unclean during her monthly visitor little less after childbirth. But though they have little to no interest in following the vast majority of rules and regulations of the book of Leviticus, they have absolutely no problem judging the guests and participants of the festival with them. People like that give Christians a bad name in my book and I find it such a shame that the majority of Christians don't do something about them.

I see the majority of these same people here every year and would have thought they might have had enough experience at the parades to at least ask some questions of the ideas and assumptions they made very clear in the conversations.

The first gentleman (I use that term loosely) would make some jack-ass statement and paint himself into a corner and instead of re-trying, he just got louder and louder. The second was more polite and we at least discussed the differences in our positions and made an effort at civility, if not courtesy. The third was as bad as the first except instead of getting loud, he would start throwing insults and really vile assumptions.

He would say that being gay meant that I was a drunkard and a lascivious sex pervert. I may have an occasional glass of wine with dinner and once in a while have a cocktail when I go out with friends, but I very rarely get plastered or even a bit tipsy, so drunkard is taking it a bit far. As far as being a sex pervert, I've been celibate (mainly) for the last 7 years. I have always been a bit old-fashioned in my dating in that I actually like knowing someone before I go to bed with them. Albeit, in West Hollywood, that makes dating a bit difficult but I don't spend much time there.

A friend had gone to the festivities with me and thought I was crazy for wasting my time in such a futile pursuit. I told him that I wasn't actually expecting any of them to become gay tolerant, little less friendly, but that you do it for the one single individual that later might actually look into the things I had said and have his heart, if not his mind, opened a bit more. Hence, why I get called a Spiritual Johnny Appleseed.

So what is being Gay? It's about being the person God made me and if that means being attracted to and loving those of the same gender as myself, so be it. For myself, Gay Pride is being just that and celebrating the diversity of God's creation by not letting simple and hateful people force me to be ashamed of something that I have little to no control over (I've decided to do a part 2 of this entry that will go into my personal history a bit on finding out about my being Gay).

To many people, being Gay is about going to bars and getting laid every day. That's a community activity that happens to most people when they come out of the closet. When you become aware that others are the same as you, that you are not a freak of nature and all alone, people have a tendency to over-compensate for the perceived loss of the experiences that most people get during adolescence. Though a hedonistic lifestyle has become a common and well publicized aspect of Gay life, these are nearly as prevalent in the heterosexual community, not a great idea for a central focus to a life beyond the crotch.

Though I am sure that many disagree with me, as far as I've been able to determine, the morality of nearly all activities is in the why, not the what. If I sleep with someone because I want to use them as a life-sized, 98.6 degree, breathing sex toy, I demean both them and myself. On the other hand, if I sleep with someone because I wish to share myself body and soul with them and they likewise with me, that's a beautiful thing and should be celebrated, not berated.