ROGERONIMO

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:43:00 +0000

Rogeronimo has moved!!!

You can now find me at Rogeronimo.com.

Follow me on Twitter @Rogeronimo_com and like my FB page Rogeronimo.com.

Thanks!!!

Dear Log Cabin Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:56:00 +0000

Regarding your press release in response to Obama's proclamation on marriage equality yesterday ~

“That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous. Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.”

I just have to ask ~

What planet do you people live on?

Offensive and callous? You're kidding, right? The Republican Party has made a sport of lying about gay people for the sole purpose of winning votes and you're going to call Obama's statement on equality callous because you don't like the way it was timed? Seriously? Of course his timing was suspect! Maybe he was a day late and a dollar short. The Republicans, however, are running Mitt Romney. What time table is he on exactly and where is his dollar? When it comes to donating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints he's always right on time and never seems to be lacking for a dollar ~ or a stock option. You remember the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, right? They're the ones who poured money into California over Prop 8. Perhaps you've forgotten which side they were fighting on ~ and whose money they appear to have been fighting with.

According to you, Obama has "manipulated LGBT families for political gain." Interesting you should mention LGBT families. If your party has its way the United States Constitution will be amended to extinguish those LGBT families that do exist and prevent any more from forming. And, for the sake of argument, let's say that we are being manipulated by Obama and his team of merry panderers. You know what I say to that? Fanfuckingtastic!!! Hey Mitt, feel free to stop being openly hostile towards the LGBT community and start attempting to manipulate us at any time. I guarantee you, you will have more fun pandering to us at a Pride event than pandering to the religious right in a megachurch.

Oddly, your press release failed to mention that Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. It failed to mention the repeal of DADT or that he stopped defending DOMA in court. If these were all acts of manipulation, then bring on four more years! Will Mitt be half as manipulative if he becomes our president? Would John McCain have been?

Yesterday was historic. Was it perfect? No. But it was historic. It was the first time that Americans heard their sitting president say he believes in full LGBT equality. Did he soften it by talking about state's rights? Absolutely. But I find it unlikely that any future Democratic presidential candidate will be able to revert to the rhetoric of inequality. Barack Obama pushed us forward yesterday. And what were the Republicans doing? White knuckling the past. Oh, and penning petty press releases.

Yesterday was huge and it was cause for celebration. Until you can come up with some GOP candidates who don't attempt to win votes by creating fear of a gay apocalypse (talk about manipulation!) ~ until the Republican primary debates cease to be the Ironman of bigotry ~ until we have GOP leaders who believe fully in equal rights for LGBT citizens ~ your statement about Obama's timing will continue to seem vindictive and childish.

Sincerely, Ian Rosen

If you like this post and want to read more posts like it ~ along with some pop culture, arts & entertainment, thoughts on aging and a bunch of other interesting, bizarre and funny stuff, look for my new website, FuckYou40.com, coming soon to an interwebs near you! You can follow me on Twitter now @FuckYou40com.

Facebook Clicking Will Not Change the World, We Have Work To Do

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:31:00 +0000

Yesterday, North Carolina passed Amendment One. My Facebook page went crazy with anger. Lots of "I'm never going to North Carolina again"s.

Well, the truth is that that are constitutional amendments banning marriage equality in one form or another in the majority of states. Thirty to be exact. (Actually, thirty-one, but I'm mildly confused as to what the hell is going on in Hawaii.) If we are going to boycott states, we need to boycott: Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona, California, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Virginia and now North Carolina. (When I took the screenshot of the map above, from Wikipedia, North Carolina hadn't been updated yet, so it appears to have no constitutional amendment.)

Our opponents have an easier job than we do. They reach into the dark part of the heart ~ the part in each and every one of us that is viscerally afraid of the other ~ of the different ~ and they manipulate that fear and lay the blame for our collective ills squarely at the feet of someone else. Someone different. Frankly, it's the reality show version of politics. It trades on the same instinct in us that likes Jersey Shore and the Real Housewives franchise because it makes us feel better about ourselves by making others seem utterly horrific. It's not new. It's not difficult. And it is successful.

Here's the hard part. It is not enough to take to Facebook and tell each state to "Suck it." It is not enough to be "ashamed of our country." If you find that you are ashamed of our country, then it's time to create a country you can be proud of. Change does not happen on its own. We are right. We are on the right side of history. Unfortunately, being right doesn't necessarily mean winning and it certainly doesn't mean easy. Our job is more difficult. It requires more stamina. It requires that we go into our communities and make change, one person at a time. It is up to each and every one of us. It's up to me. It's up to you. Go online. Find your local HRC chapter. Find your local GLSN. PFLAG. GLAAD. Find local organizations near you and give of yourself.

June is almost here and coast to coast Prides are coming up. Have you ever wondered why Pride is so much fun? Because it is a place where we can relax ~ where we are unlikely to encounter violence and where the voices which condemn us are relegated to the role of cartoonish, marginalized caricatures. It is a day where they are the minority. Pride is fun because we can hold our partner's hand with the unselfconscious ease afforded to our straight friends and family every single day of their lives. Wouldn't it be great to go home and begin to make that uncommon ease common ~ every day, on every street and in every community? This year, use Pride to discover your inner activist. It is a great a resource. The booths are there. Sign up. Walk away from Pride proud that you are getting involved and helping to change the world. Imagine what could be accomplished if every person at every Pride did that!

It is our responsibility to our children to do something. These laws affect us as adults, but they affect our LGBT children more profoundly. Our children are the most vulnerable, because they are powerless and because the cement has not yet dried on their psyche. These laws send a clear message that they are not wanted, that there is something wrong with them. They provide a framework for bullies to justify their bullying and for parents to justify their lack of acceptance. They make it easier for parents to throw their LGBT children out of their homes. They force our children to live in a world where ignorance and bigotry are supported by law. They lay the groundwork for depression and suicide all the while providing safe harbor for hatred.

We must do what we can. With our time. With our money. With our talents, our humor, our strength, our stories, our voices. We owe it to our children not to stop at Facebook clicks. We owe it to our children to change minds and hearts, each in our own way. One mind ~ one heart at a time.

What will you do?

If you like this post and want to read more posts like it ~ along with some pop culture, arts & entertainment, thoughts on aging and a bunch of other interesting, bizarre and funny stuff, look for my new website, FuckYou40.com, coming soon to an interwebs near you! You can follow me on Twitter now @FuckYou40com.

North Carolina, Amendment One & Collateral Damage

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Tue, 08 May 2012 22:03:00 +0000

If I hear another commentator repeat how one of the unintended consequences of passing Amendment One will be to dissolve straight families currently bound by domestic partnerships I'm going to lose my mind.

I have been following the coverage on tv, on the radio, online and in print. I suppose one might call this obsessive, but I tend to take it very personally when the citizens of this country get together to vote on whether or not I am wanted here. I'm sensitive like that. Call me crazy.

I'm used to hearing from the other side ~ the side that would roll back all the civil rights advances the LGBT community has made in the past few decades. I'm used to their lies, their hate. I'm used to taking deep breaths and reminding myself that their job is easier than ours ~ that misunderstanding is easier to ignite than understanding ~ that teaching is a marathon and hate is a sprint. I'm used to it. I'm used to hearing untrue things said about me on a daily basis and watching as people spew their lies from credible platforms, giving their hateful rhetoric the sheen of meaningful, thoughtful opinion. I'm used to it. It is what it is.

What has driven me nearly apoplectic listening to the coverage are the voices that come from our allies as they discuss the sad fact that Amendment One will nullify all domestic partnerships ~ ie. it's going to affect straight people. Oh no! Horror of horrors! It's going to affect straight people!!! (Witness Bill Clinton's robocall.) I'm sick and tired of hearing how families ~ straight families ~ will be harmed by this amendment. I keep hearing about health insurance and the children of domestic partnerships. I keep hearing about the fact that these families are going to be legally torn apart and how horrible that will be. You know what? I don't give a shit! This amendment is intended to ensure that no gay relationships are legally recognized. Ever. It's a bigoted Constitutional amendment meant to sit on top of an already existing bigoted law. Its purpose is to ensure that LGBT citizens are pushed to the margins. Period. End of story. It is mean-spirited and spiteful and ultimately seeks to amend not just the constitution, but the very existence of gay people from the state of North Carolina. Its purpose is to destroy gay families, create insurmountable legal obstacles for us and perpetuate a social climate so hostile that it is nearly impossible to live there. This amendment says, "You are not welcome here." That is the point! Why isn't that the story? Frankly, I don't care that some straight families will be adversely affected. For starters, they can get married! Can the same be said for gay couples? So you'll pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the straight families that are collateral damage to the perpetual blitzkriegs gay families endure.

At the end of the day, pass or fail, there will still be a legal system in place for straight couples to wrap themselves in.

Watch the video below to witness one story ~ one of many ~ of the consequences of having nothing to wrap yourself in.

If you like this post and want to read more posts like it ~ along with some pop culture, arts & entertainment, thoughts on aging and a bunch of other interesting, bizarre and funny stuff, look for my new website, FuckYou40.com, coming soon to an interwebs near you! You can follow me on Twitter now @FuckYou40com.

Bill Clinton Speaks Out Against Amendment One in North Carolina

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:07:00 +0000

Bill Clinton came out against Amendment One in North Carolina last week. While I found this declaration to be a little late in coming, I was thrilled to find out that he had decided to use his considerable name recognition and power to help us out. Then I heard his statement and was, frankly, annoyed.

The text of Bill Clinton's robocall:

"Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to urge you to vote against Amendment One on Tuesday May 8. If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage. What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs. If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment One is too big of a risk. Its passage will also take away health insurance from children and could even take away domestic violence protections from women. So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that. The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs. North Carolina can do better. Again, this is Bill Clinton asking you to please vote against Amendment One. Thanks."

Am I the only person who finds this statement disturbing? I realize that this is politics and I realize we're fighting an uphill battle in North Carolina. I realize a lot of things ~ like I should probably not look a gift horse in the mouth ~ like I should just be happy that he's decided to speak out about this.

But I'm not.

"So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that. The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs."

To my ears, this makes it seem like it's ok to discriminate against the LGBT community as long as no straight families are hurt in the process. As if to say ~ It's ok, y'all. No harm, no foul. Discriminating against the gays is fine. The real trouble comes when the laws get so paranoid and overblown that even straight people become affected. The real trouble comes when the laws hurt families!

Guess what, Bill? The laws already hurt families! They hurt gay families!

I don't know. Maybe I'm asking too much. Maybe I'm just not understanding that mentioning equal rights for everyone would be a losing argument. Maybe I live in New York and I don't understand the South or religion or the depth of the bigotry and ignorance regarding LGBT issues. Maybe a lot of things. But the wording of this statement made my skin crawl.

To hear the robocall, click here.

Hard Up

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:08:00 +0000

The conflicting signals I’ve been getting from the contentious birth control debates of the past few weeks have left me a dazed and confused. Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a “prostitute” for testifying that birth control ought to be covered by insurance companies. He suggested that her parents shouldn’t be proud of her and that she should stream videos of her sexual encounters on the internet, reasoning that if our tax dollars are going to pay for her sluttiness, the least we should get as a return on our investment is some amount of voyeuristic pleasure. He was not alone in his criticism. Famous for playing Deborah, Ray’s long-suffering wife on “Everybody Loves Raymond,” Patricia Heaton fired off a series of tweets condemning Fluke. Ann Coulter didn’t take long to weigh in either.

The truth is that Ms. Fluke was neither referring to contraception as birth control nor was she even talking about herself. And her testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with having “taxpayers pay her to have sex,” as Rush would have us believe. She was talking about birth control coverage by private insurance companies for the purpose of treating ovarian cysts. But Rush has never been particularly moved by facts. A professional peddler of inaccuracies, Rush bridled at the mere thought that a woman would stand up and demand affordable contraception as part of her overall healthcare. It was enough to render the facts, which proved no match for the ease with which one can mischaracterize a woman, utterly pointless. She’s clearly just a slut.

On the other hand, I’ve never heard a peep about the fact that Viagra is covered by insurance. Nary a single voice raised in anger. No Capital Hill testimony. None of the usual scrubbed, coiffed, cufflinked Beltway punditry leapfrogging the Sunday morning talk-show circuit debating differing views while sitting around impossibly fingerprint-free, glass-topped tables. Nothing. And I’ve never heard of a man being criticized, lied about or generally degraded for using the drug. Quite the contrary. Men get called names for not being able to have sex, not for having too much of it. Is there even a word, derogatory or not, for a heterosexual man who has too much sex ~ a word other than "lucky"?

Trying to disentangle this thicket of double standards has given me an ice-cream headache and has led me to the conclusion that birth control for women is bad, because women are not supposed to have sex, but medication that makes men more able to have sex is good, because men are.

Interesting. And confusing.

I can’t figure out what it is exactly that red-blooded, healthy American male men are supposed to do with their co-pay'd, 12 hour Super Erections if women aren't supposed to have sex with them. In layman's terms: Who are these men supposed to be fucking?

For weeks I have been trying to make sense of these contradictory messages and I just. Can't. Do it. All I can come up with is that our legislators ~ those fierce protectors of female morality yet strong proponents of male virility ~ surely have other possible uses in mind for medically induced hard-ons ~ uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with women. I’ve been brainstorming my own list and I have to tell you, there just aren't that many options. This is what I've come up with so far:

• Coat rack.

• Masturbation. Awesome. But I find it difficult to believe that private insurance companies would cover, and therefore (world according to Rush) use tax dollars to fund organ solos. Seriously, we’d be bankrupt in a matter of weeks and every man in the country would resemble a fiddler crab.

•Mano y mano sex. Hot! But the proponents of the Ladies, Put a Penny Between Your Knees movement tend to be the same folks who aren’t so keen on man-on-man action. I think that more of a stink would have been made over coverage which helps ensure that gay guys go at it better, harder and longer.

Wait. This can’t be right. Penises are for vaginas. Always. Sex is exclusively for procreative purposes, right? I get it! Insurance subsidized Viagra must be meant for use solely for the singularly correct, government condoned, Biblically approved purpose of heterosexual, penile/vaginal procreative sex that exists strictly within the confines of marriage.

Interesting. And confusing.

Where are the regulations?

There is a law currently making its way through the Arizona legislature that, if passed, would force a woman to explain to her employer why she wants birth control. Health reasons are acceptable. Slutty reasons, not so much. (I’m not making this up. Click here to read about it.)

All things being equal, men should have to provide a whole heap of information to their employers before they get that prescription filled, no?

• The patient should be forced prove his heterosexuality. Of course, this could be difficult, considering he's seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction.

• He must prove his marital status and that he will never use the Viagra to bone his wife's best friend, his secretary, an intern or any other woman capable of easing his transition into mid-life.

• He must get his sperm tested. Again, could be difficult considering his situation, but this is government money we're talking about. No Viagra if you're shootin' blanks.

Also,

• A government official must surely witness the conception to ensure that no fun was had during intercourse. This is not about fun. This is about procreation. You want it covered? Then it had better be a somber and austere event.

• A hefty fine should be levied against each Viagra'd act of love making that doesn't result in a pregnancy.

But where are these regulations? Where is the name calling? Where are they purveyors of male morality? Where is the outrage?

Why the silence?

Interesting. And confusing.

Happy Birthday Dr. Seuss

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:04:00 +0000

Theodor Geisel’s birthday's today!

He would have been one hundred eight.

He brought to us the joy of words

With the worlds he did create.

To us he gave

A Cat in a Hat,

A Lorax, a Grinch and a King Looie Katz.

He showed us the world and its many wonders.

He taught us to embrace our blunders.

I think he’d find it sad today

That parents read from screens of gray

And click the pages next to next

To see what happens in the text.

To history is left the flipping.

The torn, worn pages.

The fingers gripping.

But I shouldn't endeavor, whatsoever,

To put words in a mouth

So bold, so clever.

So simply: Happy Birthday Dr. Seuss!

Your words will live forever.

A Letter to Doubt

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:55:00 +0000

Dear Doubt ~

It has been remarkable, your absence from this process ~ from my process of creation and re-creation. I am both comforted and scared to note that you have arrived, finally, with all the subtlety of a jackhammer on tissue paper. With your glorious flourishes intact. And yet, with all the power you command, you seem to revel in your ability to wreak havoc with simple, rolled eyes, condescending lips, nostrils flared from luxuriously slow, disapproving inhales. As if I'm not even worth the full force of your arsenal. You let me know that I am still very much Me and that a single round with you can render me immobile, sometimes for prolonged stretches. The true wonder of this moment lies not in your presence, but merely in your tardiness. Where have you been? And how did I get waist deep into this before the lecturing began?

You swoop in and demand attention and create a scene. You whisper in my ear, gleefully confirming my fears. You tell me the truth. And that, Doubt, is your single greatest power ~ the source from which all your strength flows ~ creating in me the feeling that yours is the only voice speaking truth! You cast yourself as the singular voice of reason and with a dismissive wave of your hand render everything positive silly. Immature. Infantile. Ridiculous. You, Doubt, are indeed the Devil.

So here you are. And here I am. And you have supplanted my instincts ~ taken them over and demanded that Instinct become Doubt. How am I to know when you have been dispatched on behalf of my own self-preservation and when your purpose is merely to suffocate?

I don't. I guess I don't.

But here, Doubt, is the thing you may not know. I've seen my fair share of fears becoming reality. And I survived. I survived disappointment. I survived failure. I survived having my very definition of myself taken from me. It sucked. There was not even one remotely pleasant moment about it. It was profoundly embarrassing and painful. But I survived. And so the truth is that while you still scare the shit out of me, I do not feel quite as compelled to bow to your whims as I used to. What are you going to do to me exactly? Anything that hasn't already been done? I survived.

Perhaps one of the perks of age is the weathering of disappointments and lost dreams. It's not so much that my fears have disappeared, they've just dissipated a little. I find them less paralyzing than I used to. Who knew failure carried with it a certain freedom? Who knew heartbreak came with a Free Gift With Purchase?

So Doubt, the questions aren't: What is your purpose here? or Do you scare me? The questions are, simply: How much of your advice will I heed? Will I allow you to define yourself as Common Sense? Will I allow you to paralyze me in order to avoid a possible hurt and that ever-present playground fear of being made fun of?

To that I take a deep breath, puff out my feathers and say:

I'm 40. Fuck you.

Sincerely, Ian

Do You Support Marriage Equality? The Full Vesuvius.

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:18:00 +0000

Since marriage equality roared suddenly out of the past and into the present a few months ago in New Jersey I, along with many other dedicated activists, have been diligently phone banking ~ asking our community to reach out to our representatives with the message that the time for marriage equality is now. (Due to the swift vetoing hand of Governor Christie, the time clearly isn't now, but we will get there.) The experience of making these calls has been humbling, enlightening, maddening, hilarious. It has been frustrating, depressing, wonderful, joyous. It has been full. And I made some new friends, for which I am thankful.

The beginning of each conversation involves finding out where the recipient stands on the issue. We ask if they support marriage equality for same-sex couples. Sometimes the answer is, "No."

No.

Phone banking is not about changing minds. It's about sparking action. We could spend 1/2 hour trying to convince one person that the opinion they've diligently cultivated for the past 60 years is wrong or we can move on to 20 more people who believe in what we're doing and spur them to action. So we don't debate. It's not the forum and it's not the point. In this situation, it's a waste of time.

The older I get, the more I truly, truly understand and grasp the whole truth ~ that gay is boring as shit ~ imagine spending your whole life talking about and defending being straight? ~ because the only difference is all the bullshit that we're taught, absolutely not one syllable of which is true. And the older I get, the more I find I have less tolerance for "No." "No" forces me to step on my tongue, chew on the inside of my cheek and take a deep, cleansing breath. "No" creates a volcano in me and these conversations are not the place for the full Vesuvius.

My blog, however, is.

See below for the full Vesuvius:

Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell do you care if I get married? I've been with the same man for 14 years. How the fuck does it affect your life if I marry him? You know what ~ I don't think ugly people should be able to get married ~ and yes, I want to be the arbiter of ugly. I don't think stupid people should be able to get married. All that's going to happen is they're going to create more stupid people. Spousal abusers? No. Bad credit? No. I don't think people should be able to marry someone that their children don't like. Outstanding parking tickets? Houses foreclosed? Adulterers? No. No. No. I don't think people who wish to marry too young should be able to marry. I'll decide what's too young. Already pregnant? No. Never slept with anyone else? Absolutely not. So that one of them can stay in the country or because they just wanted to put each other on their health insurance or because they really just want a fucking party or because or because or because? No. No. No. No. No. No. Why isn't anyone calling me to ask me my opinion about these marriages? Why can't I call my legislators and ask them to vote "NO!" on a Pamela Anderson marriage? Or Britney? Or Kim Kardashian. I WANT MY SAY. I do not support another JLo marriage. I think she's probably impossible to live with. I don't know her. I don't know her any more than Chris Christie knows me, but I don't want her married. I think as a country we should have a referendum before anyone gets married. That person in your office so excited to go to Italy on their honeymoon? Yeah, everyone knows they're going to be divorced in five years. Why is no one weighing in on the legality of that marriage? Anna Nicole's marriage to a billionaire fifty years her senior? I don't think that was for love. I could be wrong. I don't ~ didn't ~ know either one of them. I don't care. It just made me feel creepy inside and I think I should be able to create a law based on my own personal feeling of ickiness towards them. And what will their marriage teach the children? How about any 70 year old man whose late-life crisis dictates that he marry an overly processed, pulled, tucked, plucked, tweezed, augmented and overly tanned 30 year old woman who's younger than his children? Where is my phone call? Because I would say, "No." And apparently my "No" could become law if enough people out there agree with me. I want the right to veto each and every marriage that I don't like.

How about this: I don't think that loving, happy, healthy, wonderful, committed straight couples who will be productive and go to work and pay their taxes and maybe raise children who will grow up to be wonderful citizens who help old people across the street or give that person in front of them in line a nickel so that they have exact change should be able to get married. Why? I just don't. And I don't have to explain my reasons to you. It's just a difference of opinion. And I want the law to reflect it.

But no one is asking me.

Our job seems clear: to make the question ridiculous. And offensive. We have come so far. We have so very far to go. Keep calling your legislators. Keep flash mobbing in JC Penny. Keep waving those flags and coming out of the closet. Keep living your lives, openly. Keep the momentum going. The war is over. We just have a lot of battles to fight.

A Thank You Note to the Plaintiffs of Prop 8

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:53:00 +0000

I thank you. I thank you on behalf of my younger self, who looked forward at his life and saw that things he wanted were not possible for him because of who he was. I thank you. I thank you for dedicating your lives to making sure that our LGBT youth no longer face the same future I faced. I thank you. I thank you for teaching our LGBT children that they will have the exact same options open to them as their straight counterparts as they go through their lives. I thank you. I thank you for teaching straight children that LGBT citizens are no different and should not be bound by a different set of laws. I thank you. I thank you for the tears I'm crying as I type this. Tears of joy and anger and inspiration and resolve to continue to fight until this ridiculous battle is laid to rest and visited only in history books. I thank you. I thank you for your courage. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. Sincerely, Ian Rosen

Fight For Marriage Equality In New Jersey From The Comfort Of Your Own Home!

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:56:00 +0000

PLEASE SHARE WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN THE GARDEN STATE.

ONLY NEW JERSEY RESIDENTS CAN CONTACT NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVES.

It's cold. It's dark. It's the middle of winter and even though it's been pretty temperate these past few days, it seems people just want to curl up at home and re-emerge next spring.

But New Jersey's residents have no such luxury. Marriage equality is being debated RIGHT NOW. It is winding its way through the legislature and will likely wind up on Governor Christie's desk in the near future. He has vowed to veto any such bill, which means that we must double, triple and quadruple our efforts in order to secure enough votes to override his veto ~ in order that our voices be heard, our opinions be counted and our equality be won. And we can do it! We can do it if we all take just a few moments to tell our legislators that we are in favor of marriage equality.

Four minutes ~ three steps ~ to help make marriage equality a reality in New Jersey.

1) Copy & paste this link: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/districtnumbers.asp

It has New Jersey broken down into districts. Districts are listed by county and then broken down further by town. Find your town and click on your district.

2) That will take you to a page which lists your Senator, your Assemblymen/women and their office phone numbers. Call them at any time. If it's after business hours you can leave a message. If you know that your representatives are for marriage equality, thank them! ~ this is important because they rarely get positive feedback on any issue ~ and let them know that you are too. If they are against it or you don't know their position, just let them know that you "strongly support marriage equality in New Jersey." Then leave your name and your address. That's it! They'll put one more check mark in the For Marriage Equality column of their tally sheet. A tally sheet that they will absolutely consider as this debate progresses and as they go to vote.

If you'd like to take a moment to send a personal note to your representative(s), clicking on their names will lead to a page with a "Contact Your Legislator(s)" link.

No matter how you choose to communicate, and no matter what you representatives' views on this issue, always be respectful and polite.

3) Pass this on to everyone you know and share with them how empowered you feel knowing that your voice, literally, has been heard. Make sure they call too!!!

Don't just be proud. Be proud that you did something!

Thanks,

Ian

Calling for Equality, First Night

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:11:00 +0000

The last time I phone banked it was on behalf of Governor Corzine. We all know how well that went. In light of his recent re-emergence in the news, I’m not so sure his losing was a bad thing ~ although at least I would likely have been married by now. But whether his losing was good or bad is irrelevant. He lost. Governor Christie won. And whether you love him or hate him or find yourself somewhere in the middle is also irrelevant. He is our governor. And for the past few years I have found myself a somewhat inactive activist. We have a governor who has said that he would veto a marriage equality bill out of hand and not enough votes to override the veto. End of story.

I do not know the machinations that brought marriage equality, seemingly quite suddenly, up again in the New Jersey legislature. I do not know the machinations that have gotten the bill fast tracked for a vote. Nor do I know the machinations of Governor Christie’s apparent softening – for him – on the issue. I don’t know and I don’t care. Whatever the reasons, we have another opportunity to take the ball into the end zone. The bill has been introduced. It is time for the activists to be active. We have been roused from our Christie hibernation.

Last night was our first phone banking session ~ the beginning of Garden State Equality and the Human Rights Campaign’s push in New Jersey to finally see marriage equality become a reality. We call our supporters and ask that they, in turn, call their representatives with the message that New Jersey’s LGBT couples deserve to be treated equally under the law – they should be able to get married.

The truth is that I hate phone banking. I hate bothering people in the evening, in their homes, with their families, enjoying what is probably a small island of relaxation in an otherwise hectic day. I feel like I’m intruding. But I hold my breath and I wrinkle my nose like I’m taking some bad tasting medicine and I call. I call because it is something to do. I call because I find that I can not sit home and hope when there is work to be done. I call because there is truth to be spoken and there are changes to be made. I call. And I call. And I call. One tiny call at a time that sometimes seems not to be moving the world in the slightest. I call. Some people are rude. Some people hang up. Some people have no idea why we are calling or what Garden State Equality or the Human Rights Campaign is. I call. I call to spread information, because most people don’t know what’s going on in Trenton. I call because most people don’t truly understand that their representatives will listen to them – and that they tally calls on every issue in “for” and “against” columns. I call because good people are too often silent. I call because the voice of the government should not be one more voice that bullies our LGBT children and reinforces the ignorance of bigots. I call because fear is a successful motivating factor for our opponents and because they use it to great advantage. I hate to call. But I call because our opponents have no such aversion. I call. Because you never know which call will be one that changes the world just a little.

I call for equality.

Dear New Year's Resolute ~

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 12:59:00 +0000

Welcome to the gym! I doubt you'll be here long, but even if you only make it to Valentine's Day, this will come in handy. It might seem a tad rough, but believe me, it's better than pissing off some guy who's already on the verge of a serious 'roid rage and is just looking for any excuse to Naomi Campbell your ass. You'll thank me later.

A few rules ~

30 minute limit on the cardio equipment. 30 minutes. That's it. That sign. Taped to the mirror. Right in front of your face? The one that says, "30 minute limit on the cardio equipment"? In gym-speak that means that there's a 30 minute limit on the cardio equipment. And may I be blunt? You haven't broken a sweat since TiVo eliminated the need for you to scurry back into your living room. You aren't going to lose that 40lbs in one manic 5 hour cardio session. You can set the Stepmill to Kilimanjaro and grunt to your pasty, near-unconscious delight. You can Lance Armstrong the stationary bike in your Hefty Bag sweatsuit until you are a ball of hyperventilating pulp. You can white-knuckle the treadmill until you collapse and get spit out like a baseball at a batting cage. But the truth is this: if you were built like soft-serve in a condom when you got on that machine, you will be built like soft-serve in a condom when you get off that machine. Your goal can not be accomplished in a single session. You are going to have to come back and do this again. Dedication, not dehydration, is the key to altering your body. So get the hell off the machine and don't give ME a dirty look when I ask if I can use it after you've been on it for 90 minutes. Dedication.

The answer is "Yes, you can work in with me." Here at the gym we do a little thing that we like to call sharing, maybe you've heard of it. (If you haven't got the foggiest idea what "working in" means, look it up.) (If you haven't got the foggiest idea what sharing means, get that Chicken Soup for the Soul book or that Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten book. I've never personally read either of them, but I'm gonna bet they might help to clarify things.) Sharing.

Loafers?

Do you have to do your set right in front of the weight rack? No. No you don't. Step away from the rack! So that you aren't - I don't know - blocking every. Single. Other. Person. From using the weights. It's just common courtesy. You are not here alone. And, not for nothin', if it's too heavy to carry four feet, then it's too fucking heavy for you to exercise with. Courtesy.

Jeans?

There is just absolutely no need to gyrate and thrust and make yourself look generally silly in order to lift the heaviest weight at the gym. Much in the same way that wearing a zero when she's an 8 makes Mariah Carey look fatter than she actually is, lifting with a weight that's too heavy doesn't make you look strong, it just makes you look like a douchebag. Momentum is not your friend. You're trying to build muscle, not a pyramid. So start with a weight you can manage and work your way up to that Arnold weight in the corner. Dedication.

Re-rack your weights! Courtesy. Douchebag. Too heavy.

Flip flops?

Clearly you're excited about the sweating (Not since TiVo!!!), but you know, we here at the gym indulge in a little accessory we like to refer to as - a towel. We sweat. We love to sweat. And we pretty much sweat on everything. And then we wipe that shit down before moving on or before we allow someone else - learning curve in action - to work in with us. Sharing. Courtesy. Douchebag. Wipe down.

That bench? It's not a park bench. Neither is it a coffee table, mantle, footrest or phone booth. (Hang up!) It's a bench. Which we use. To lift. And when we're done, we wipe it down and re-rack our weights. And sometimes, if the gym is crowded, we let someone else work in with us. Sharing. Courtesy. Douchebag. Wipe down. Park bench.

To recap: Dedication. Sharing. Courtesy. Too heavy. Douchebag. Work in. Wipe down. Re-rack. Soft-serve. Condom. Park bench. Hang up. Work out.

I think that if you follow these few, simple rules, you'll find that the gym is a great place to be. And you might find those mean gym-rats to be all warm and fuzzy. And maybe you'll stay past the first really cold day.

WELCOME TO THE GYM!

Sincerely,

All The Gym-Goers Who Are Annually Annoyed By The Sudden Influx Of The Resolute Yet Clueless

Letter to Newt

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:41:00 +0000

“I think, for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support, and I accept that that’s a reality. On the other hand, for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.” Newt Gingrich to gay Iowan Scott Arnold on December 20, 2011

Dear Newt -

For the past week I have been writing and rewriting a letter to you regarding this exchange you had with Mr. Arnold. It has so infuriated me that I find I can barely put a word on paper without splintering off into the myriad ways you are wrong - and I'd be remiss if I didn't point out laughably hypocritical - on the issue of gay rights and on equality in general.

In the above quote not only do you make it clear that you believe equality to be a stand alone issue, you make clear your belief that it is an issue having only to do with gay people and, most disturbingly, an issue at odds with the obviously more pressing concerns of other, "real" Americans - job creation, national security and "a better future for the country at large."

Newt, only in your funhouse-mirror-view of this country are any of these subtle - or maybe not so subtle - implications true. You can white-knuckle yesterday's hatred in an attempt to burnish your credibility with the Religious Right (and considering your own run-ins with the morality police, it is understandable, albeit disgusting) all you want. You can peddle fear in exchange for a few votes. You can pit citizen against citizen by painting those who seek equality as doing so in a selfish vacuum while characterizing others as having more magnanimous, altruistic worries like the betterment of the country "at large.” You can, you have and you will again. But it doesn't make you right and it doesn't make you anything more than a greasy, dime store politician.

Newt, those of us for whom marriage equality is a central issue are, in fact, fighting for a better future for our country - for every citizen. We understand, as you, apparently, do not, that discrimination against one is discrimination against all.

You mention national security as an issue more pressing than equality. You have said that you would reinstate DADT. As you attempt to bundle our equality neatly into a pile off to the side of American politics, might I remind you about the tens of thousands of military personnel hunted down and discharged under that abhorrent policy. And might I ask you if you can say for certain that no contributions were lost to the witch-hunt of institutionalized bigotry? Can you say without a doubt that nothing was lost when some of our finest Arab linguists were unceremoniously fired, not for their performance on the job, but solely for being, or thought to be, gay? Can you say that not one life would have been saved by a discharged medic? Not one code intercepted? Not one IED dismantled? You cannot, Newt. And yet it is you who thinks that national security comes before, rather than next to, equality.

You mention job creation as an issue of vital importance the voters of this country. On that point we agree. I’m sure you’re aware that in 29 states it is perfectly legal to fire someone solely for being gay. Now I ask you, when someone is fired for being gay, is that person’s need for equality more important or less important than their need to find another job. Is that person an unemployed homo or an out of work American? Gay or American, Newt? You tell me.

Those of us fortunate enough to have jobs find that marriage equality is another issue which reaches into every aspect of our lives. I’ll spare you the horror stories of couples split apart at the hospital in times of crisis – of the message we send to our gay children by showing them that they will be unable to participate fully in this country when they grow up. I’ll spare you the issues of the heart and humanity and stick to a language you understand - money. When an unmarried person has their partner on their health insurance, those premiums come from money that has already been taxed. If that couple were married, that money would be taken out of their check pre-tax, which means that gay couples have less money to spend than they would if they were in a federally recognized marriage. That is money we could spend - money that would help to stimulate the economy and grow jobs, no? Now I ask you, is this money that we could be spending plain old-fashioned money or is it gay money? Again Newt, gay or American? Please advise.

For us, civil rights are not an either/or issue. Either equality or national security. Either equality or the ecomony. They cannot be separated, no matter how hard you might try. They are not part of a pie chart of issues that we face. They are, in fact, the entire chart. These laws reach into our wallets and our workplaces, our homes and our families, and characterizing them as singular shows your unsettlingly simple view of the roadblocks facing gay people every single day of our lives. Our civil rights are an umbrella under which we live. They affect every issue. They are all encompassing.

For your part, it seems clear that you would like to see the chasm between LGBT Americans and “real” Americans widened and cemented in your proposed policies – you would see DADT reinstated; you would stop gays from adopting; you would propose a constitutional amendment barring us from getting married. How this country is made better by blocking an entire segment of the population from fully participating and investing in it is thoroughly beyond me. Please Newt, elaborate.

It appears, Newt, that you would prefer we just go away. Sorry. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how you may scare people too ignorant to know better and drive up your polling numbers with easy, reliable hatred towards the gay community, we are here. We are not separate. We are content to neither go away nor be silent. And as much as you would like to “otherize” us, we are your sisters (in your case, literally), your brothers, your fathers, mothers, cousins, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. We are everywhere. And we contribute to and take from this country in the exact same ways as heterosexual Americans - at least insofar as the current laws will allow. Believe it or not, we are here, affected by the economy, joblessness and national security just like everyone else. In many cases, due to the uneven playing field, more.

Sincerely, Ian Rosen

Dear Governor Christie

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:07:00 +0000

Dear Governor Christie -

Thank you for the statement you made on 770 WABC Radio denouncing Viki Knox's homophobic statements on Facebook and, allegedly, in school. Thank you for supporting an "examination of how that teacher conducts herself in the classroom."

Of her words you said, "I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society. I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made." I couldn't agree more. I am concerned as well. You are the governor of our state and you hold an "important and influential position in our society" as well. This is why I'd like to point out that while your words are more subtle than Ms. Knox's, your opposition to marriage equality sends the same message. It is a message that says we, New Jersey's LGBT citizens, are different. It is a message that says that based solely on who we are, we will be barred from participating in society in the same way as our straight friends, parents, co-workers, brother and sisters. It is a message of inequality. We are not the only ones who get that message. To me, the most disturbing aspect of Viki Knox's Facebook tirade is that the law in our state, rather than rebuking her bigotry, confirms it.

Governor Christie, I urge you to reconsider your position on marriage equality. I urge you to consider the example you are setting.

Sincerely,

Roger I. Rosen

Frank Kameny - American Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:01:00 +0000

Frank Kameny, a hero of mine since I discovered him in college, passed away yesterday. Fittingly, Frank Kameny died on National Coming Out Day. A day, it can be argued, that Frank Kameny helped to make possible. While I never met Frank Kameny, I can’t help but feel connected to him. I can’t help but feel a direct link between Frank Kameny’s life and work and the fact that yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of HRC at a National Coming Out Day event sponsored by an astounding young man in a library in the middle of New Jersey. It was a remarkable event for two reasons – because it was remarkable to those who attended and because it was not remarkable to those who didn’t. The fact that a GLBT group can meet openly in a public library in the middle of New Jersey without so much as a raised eyebrow from passersby can be traced directly to a handful of notable people whose strength, courage, fortitude, fearlessness, vision and certitude launched a movement. Frank Kameny is – was - one of those people.

It is not without thought that I used Frank Kameny’s name repeatedly in the previous paragraph instead of surrendering to smoother-sounding pronouns. The least I can do is sacrifice the pace of a paragraph so that Frank Kameny’s name can be read and re-read - and hopefully remembered.

Sometimes the people who change the world aren't treated to a collective mourning when they die - a Facebook hand-wringing and cyber-competition for the title of Most Affected and Grief-Stricken. Sometimes they get neither a bowed head from the media nor impromptu pop-up memorials. It seems that Mr. Kameny’s passing has registered barely a blip on the media radar.

I fear that no one knows who Frank Kameny is. I fear that while we enjoy the fruits of his legacy everyday, he himself is already largely forgotten.

This was a man who did the unthinkable - he protested his discharge from the army – a discharge based solely on the fact that he was gay - and appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court declined to hear the case and a lower court's ruling against him was upheld, but to dwell on the outcome would be missing the point entirely. He did this in the '50s!!! On his own. He was a gay activist when there were few gay activists. His anger predated Stonewall by a decade. He taught us that “gay is good” when gay was considered not only not good, but sick.

He had no apology in him.

He said, out loud, what no one was saying – what no one was even thinking. He marched when marching was truly dangerous. He laid a path where there had been no path. His courage made my own life easier and better. His courage made the lives of all GLBT people easier and better.

I am sad that he is gone, although at his age it can hardly be described as surprising.

I am profoundly sad that he seems to be largely forgotten.

Dear Rachel

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:19:00 +0000

In an interview she gave to the Hollywood Reporter, Rachel Maddow voiced her opinion on marriage equality:

"'I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognizing relationships,' she explains. 'And I worry that if everybody has access to the same institutions that we lose the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own. And I like gay culture.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Rachel -

I am a 39 year old gay man. I am a huge fan of yours and while I agree with you on almost every issue, I have to tell you that I found your views on marriage equality short-sighted at best.

This isn't about the preservation of gay culture. This is about equality, and while I will certainly utilize my right to marry the instant I get it, it is ultimately not about my equality or your equality. To me, this about our gay children. Our gay children who should look forward in their lives and see as many choices, options and opportunities as their straight counterparts - who should not have to unlearn all they have been taught about themselves. I couldn't be prouder of my community for building families and defying laws and odds and norms. I look at those who came before me in utter awe - of their strength, their fearlessness, their creativity, their internal fortitude in knowing that there was nothing wrong with them when the world was telling them the exact opposite. But I want those who come after me to read about our history and our struggles - I don't want them to know firsthand. It is my most fervent wish that they not fully understand what it was to be gay way back when we could not get married; when we could not adopt and create families which received full protection under the law; when we could be fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes simply for being gay. Let there be a great, wide generational chasm! I wish for them an easier path than yours or mine. That's why, to me, marriage matters. It is the same reason that the repeal of DADT mattered. So that our children can look forward and see no difference.

I have heard from friends and now read your views that this lack of difference is worrisome. That it will lead to the end of gay culture. To that I say this:

I would gladly give away my sense of humor as I know it to not have felt tortured as a child when I knew I was gay and I "knew" it was "bad." I would gladly give away any creativity I have to never have been taught that parts of this world were closed off to me simply because of who I am. I am not worried about the loss of gay culture. I am worried about the loss of gay children at their own hands because they are being tortured at school and on the omnipresent internet. I am worried about the loss of gay adults at the hands of ignorant, angry people who see in the media their own hate dressed up as a difference of opinion; who see in our laws not a condemnation of their own fears and prejudices, but a reflection of them. I am not worried about the loss of the next great gay game changer if the reason that they are a game changer stems from their hesitation at holding their boyfriend's or girlfriend's hand in public, from their fear of kissing their significant other goodbye at an airport, from the loss of a natural sexual coming of age. If that is what creates gay culture, then I would just as soon give it all away so that our next generation can grow up average. Perhaps fewer of us will be special. Perhaps more of us will be happy.

Sincerely,

Roger Rosen

What Do We Want? Anarchy! How Do We Want It? Through Marriage!

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:01:00 +0000

Last week, former football player David Tyree came out against marriage equality. In a videotaped interview he did with NOM, he went on the record spouting all the hate-filled, manipulative lies we've heard time and time again - protect the children, one man/one woman, family, mother/father, God. Same old, same old. But then he said something new. Something I hadn't heard before. And noteworthy in its sheer, brash illogic. He actually went so far as to say that “If they pass this gay marriage bill...this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward, you know, it's a strong word, but anarchy.”

Anarchy.

Anarchy!

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines anarchy as:

1 a: absence of government; b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority; c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order; b : absence of order : disorder anarchy of nature

Marriage equality will lead to anarchy - an astounding leap! Absence of government? State of lawlessness? Absence or denial of any authority or established order? Those of us who seek marriage wish to be MORE a part of society. We wish to follow MORE rules. We want MORE responsibility. We are not looking to destroy anything. Indeed, we want the structure of this country whole and healthy. WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN IT! We are looking to gain access to a contract that will enmesh us further into the machinations and fabric of society. We wish to become more stable and more committed to each other and to the institutions that bind us. What we are looking for is the opposite of anarchy. WE ARE LOOKING FOR BANALITY! Marriage - the squarest, most non-rebellious, middle America institution that exists - leading to anarchy?

At the moment I heard these words come out of David Tyree's mouth, I began to understand that people such as he, people who work at NOM and people who spend their time and their money traveling the country with the goal of ensuring that gay people remain in the shadows of society are deranged. Deranged.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines deranged as:

1 to disturb the operation or functions of; 2 disarrange deranged — G. W. Stonier> 3 to make insane

They have been made insane by hate. By ignorance. By a lifetime of lies told first to them, then by them.

And now it seems that David Tyree is going to take his lies - his melodramatic, hate tinged, manipulative lies - to Albany, where the Senate is but one vote away from granting marriage equality to the Empire State. He will likely be listened to and taken seriously, this deranged man who spouts nonsense and calls it love.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

Adolf Hitler

Will Gays Bring Down The Great American Military?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:36:00 +0000

Following the events that will hopefully result in the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell has always been frustrating. But lately it has been almost too much to bear. Had this much time, energy and money been focused on regulating big business, creating an even tax structure and reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, perhaps we might be in better shape. But what gets scrutinized, pulled apart and picked over? Whether or not an openly gay person will bring down the great American military. I guess we're more fragile than I was taught. So much for American exceptionalism.

For the record, everyone accepts the fact that there are gays in the military. The current conversation is about whether or not knowing who's gay would be too much to handle for those who dislike us. I'm guessing that the John McCains of the world think bigots make great soldiers, because this entire conversation centers around ensuring that they're kept happy and comfortable.

It's astonishing what we focus on.

It's astonishing to listen to this debated earnestly. To listen to the serious tone the hearings are taking. This is clearly something that we need to parse and splice - to look at from every conceivable angle. Something requiring a year long study and, if you listen to our opponents, many more months to review that study's findings. We didn't have this much debate before we started the fucking war! You can almost hear the Wicked Witch of the West rubbing her hands together, saying, "These things must be handled delicately," not referring to the war itself but to which sexuality is better qualified to get shot at, fly a helicopter, drive a tank or file paperwork. As if gay people are more of a threat to morale, military preparedness and unit cohesion than a lying president, an unconscionable amount of strategic bumbling, inadequate body armor and the almost guaranteed eventuality that if you are lucky enough to return home you'll find that your job has evaporated. As if gay people are more of a threat to the military than terrorists armed with explosives, bullets and the belief that dying is preferable to living. Dear Senator McCain et al, message received - What poses the greatest threat to the United States? The out homosexual.

You know what I think those opposed to the repeal of D.A.D.T. are really afraid of? What they really can't handle? I don't think that these people can wrap their heads around the fact that this dyke or that faggot might just be a war hero. Just like all the other veterans they embrace. Just like all the other soldiers who return home with a broken body and a broken spirit. Or the soldiers who don't make it home at all. It must be difficult to take us out of the bedroom. For as much as our opponents seem dismayed by what we do there, they seem equally obsessed with it. If we are to serve openly, we will be heroes openly. One day we will have openly gay war heroes in our history books! Our schoolchildren will learn about them. And before you wonder how being gay would come up in an elementary school history book I will tell you that George Washington was married to Martha. We all read it. And it's just that simple. And it's just another way that we will no longer be excluded from society, which must be a horrific thought to people who have only ever seen us as one thing. I don't think they can come to terms with the fact that they will have to forward to our gay veterans the same respect, deference and thanks that they instinctively forward to our straight veterans. Of course, with that same respect, gratitude and thanks, one must forward the same money.

The money faucet seems to gush freely, almost violently when it comes to the persecution and prosecution of gay people. Never have I heard one word uttered from the fiscally conservative right regarding the ridiculous, avoidable cost of waging a war on our military's gays. Never have I heard one word of complaint about the cost of investigating those "accused" and then routing those found "guilty." Not one word about the cost of retraining soldiers to fill the empty spots left by those who have been unceremoniously separated from the military. Not even during our current economic implosion. You'd think that there would be an outcry, a clarion call to conservatives that this could be a great way to save money - repeal D.A.D.T. But no. Better to cut funding for food stamps and unemployment benefits than to deprive these witch hunts of their financial oxygen. Gay hunting is necessary spending.

And yet - and yet! - mark my words - it's only a matter of time until someone comes up with the notion that caring for our gay troops is cost prohibitive. It is going to happen. Bet on it. Watch the narrative unfold: Those activist, progressive, Un-American homosexual veterans are going to bankrupt the nation with their outrageous demands. For equality.

And here, I think, is the final piece of the hate and fear - What happens when these men and women return home? Having fought for our country - having marched directly into harm's way, having faced separation from home, comfort and loved ones, having sacrificed so much to keep us safe, so the propaganda goes - will they be content with a system of laws that does not protect them with the same vigor that it protects their straight counterparts? Will they be content with the possibility of eviction based solely on their sexual identity? Of being fired from their job? Will not being able to legally marry the person they love be an acceptable fate? Oh my! Letting them come out of the closet opens up a whole Pandora's Box, doesn't it? And what of their husbands and wives? Of their widows and widowers? Might they stand up and scream, "We exist!"? Might they demand that their fears, their pain, their struggles and their horrors deserve legal recognition and support? Imagine!

If we let gays serve openly, how will we know where they become unequal?

That's what I think our opponents are most afraid of. Not the repeal in and of itself. But of the ripples that will surely come after. Of the repercussions. These people who claim to want to do anything and everything for our troops and veterans will now be caught between a rock and a hard place. They will no longer be able to chant their support for the military while preaching hate against gays. That will become an impossible political position.

What is possible is that D.A.D.T. is a staggering dinosaur and that its repeal, should it happen, when it happens, will be one giant, lurching step towards the end of the systemic, institutionalized bigotry that this country currently practices.

Tiger Woods

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:51:00 +0000

Tiger seems to have captured our national attention. He is everywhere. In magazines. On the internet. In the papers. On television. His exploits have been studied and dissected from every conceivable angle. Of course there is the obligatory distancing angle. This is when the media, in an attempt to save face, shakes it's head and wags it's finger at all the media attention. They perfunctorily put on disapproving faces, complete with furrowed brow and slightly downturned lips in a mask vaguely resembling human concern, and wonder aloud about the toll all this attention might be taking on Tiger Woods and his wife; how having cameras shoved in their respective faces could be psychically damaging. They do this while showing us footage of them having cameras shoved in their faces. The media washes their hands of any seeming impropriety by covering the coverage, not the story.

It seems this circular logic serves two purposes - two obvious purposes. The newscasters get to pretend that they are removed from the feeding frenzy - that they are somehow above it. At the same time it allows them to propagate it. The signal this sends is that they know they've got actual stories to report on, but they're going to spend their time, and ours, on the whereabouts of Tiger Woods' dick. Health care reform? Later in the hour. Two wars. Later. The economy. Later. The global warming extravaganza in Copenhagen. Boring - but wait, there's some violence. So that's a little better. But still later. Despicable.

Why are we so fascinated?

I think that the root of our fascination lies in the fact that we think we know Tiger Woods. We have come to know him on the golf course and in thirty second commercial snipets. We've seen his picture myriad times in magazines and on billboards. They all repeat the same basic mantra: Tiger Woods is a stand up guy - honest. He may not be our friend, but he would be if he lived next door to us - if he weren't arguably the greatest athlete of all time. We may not have ever met him, but we have come to believe that we know him nonetheless. And that is the definition of fame - the people who know you outnumber the people that you know.

But we don't know him. We know his image - his carefully crafted image. He looks young and wholesome. He's attractive, but not in an off-putting way. He's seems open and friendly. He looks kind. In no way does he look like a cheater. Of any sort. His eyes convey a sense of honesty. Add to that his comportment on the golf course. In control. Together. Classy.

All of these variables have been skillfully whittled and harnessed. Ads were created and words were put into his mouth. Words that we would believe coming out of this pure, honest looking guy. And they were repeated. Over and over. And over again. Until we began to think that this two dimensional figure - a creature of publicity machine magic - was a full and complete human being.

We were sold the idea of a man who would never cheat. On the golf course or in his marriage. And we bought it. We live in an age where marketing is truth. And we're fascinated when we peek behind the curtain to discover that these cartoon characters don't exist.

I think that is why we're so fascinated by how many women Tiger Woods has slept with. Would we be half as fascinated if it were a pre-Annette Bening Warren Beatty? I doubt it. His stock in trade was his dick - which he supposedly happily shared with every woman in Hollywood. Except for Shirley MacLaine. The interesting story there would be if he actually didn't sleep with all those women.

Iconization doesn't lend itself to subtlety. It is borne of repetition and gets its traction with broad strokes. It is, by nature, simple. Iconization shatters under the weight of the complex or complicated. And certainly can not withstand the pressure of human contradiction.

Clearly we didn't know Tiger Woods. Of course now we think we do. Most of us still haven't met him, but we have this new piece of information which, once digested, will give us the impression that we know him now. But the truth is that most of us will never meet him and will never know the slightest thing about him. The truth is that it takes a lifetime to know friends. A lifetime to know lovers. A lifetime to know ourselves. So how can we possibly know someone we've never even seen in person?

And lest anyone think that I've gotten so wrapped up in the felling of Tiger Woods that I've momentarily stopped being an angry gay male, consider this: his marriage is perfectly legal. In all fifty states. I've yet to hear even one of the "defenders of traditional marriage," one of the clergy who fight so virulently to ensure that my marriage remains lesser, one of the leaders of the National Organization for Marriage voice concern about teaching Tiger's marriage to young children. I've yet to hear even one of them condemn his marriage or challenge it's sanctity. Or legality.

He's fucking the right people.

Visibility.

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:52:00 +0000

Tonight I find myself typing with trembling fingers. It seems that the marriage equality fight might finally come to New Jersey. And, if it does, there's a possibility that I might get the chance to marry my best friend, my love, my lover, my partner, my occasional tormentor, my comic relief, my shelter, my shield, my fan, my smack upside the head, my so many things. I am grateful for all that he is to me. And I am grateful for all that he allows me to be for him. Sometimes I think the most loving act is the gleeful, gracious acceptance of love. That he has fallen in love with me, and thus given me the opportunity to spend my life loving him, is a blessing I am not talented enough to express in words. And while it's quite clear that in the apprehensive, skittish world of politics anything or nothing can happen at a moment's notice, it seems at this moment that New Jersey's number is about to be called.

I find myself frustrated, depressed, angry, horrified, driven to distraction by our recent losses. The truth appears to be neither as flashy nor as seductive as fear. It feels that we simply can not break up that generations old bedrock of ignorance that our opponents have built their house of cards on.

It's a game of fear. Our opponents use it to their advantage, brilliantly. Marriage equality isn't even up for a vote yet (a despicable idea if ever there was one, yet here we are, voting on my relationship while peeking into Tiger Woods' marriage without the slightest thought that it should be put to a referendum) in New Jersey and already I've heard a horrific yet effective radio ad denouncing it. At the end of the ad is a disclaimer from the station that the "views expressed may not necessarily be the views of the station." Well, that's not entirely true. I doubt they would take money from anyone who would advocate reverting to spousal ownership - a truly traditional idea. So while they may not agree with the ideas expressed, at the very least they don't find them offensive enough to forgo that advertising money.

Fear. On another level our politicians vote their own personal fears. Although I think it is often the case that they fear marriage equality less than they fear winding up actually affected by the current "recession." Like the rest of us, they are afraid of losing their jobs. Unlike the rest of us, when they play politics, it's for real. And the consequences of their fears are catastrophic.

This is why I find myself occasionally overwhelmed with what feels like an impotent anger. Their fears, to some extent, dictate my life. Their fears place boundaries around some of us - around me - but not around others. So I have to step back from my emotions. When I read things day in and day out about myself that aren't true but which clearly resonate with the fearful and ignorant - when hypocrisy struts around with grandeur and arrogance - when religion is called upon to do the dirty work for those who's abnormal, fetishized obsession with gay people propels them to crisscross the country spewing bile and providing a breeding ground for intolerance, ignorance and hate, all the while disavowing any violence that might take place in their wake - I must step back and look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is, in a word, visibility. As hurt and disgusted as I am on a daily basis, I must remind myself that even if it seems that we are losing, and even as those righteous defenders of inequality gloat in their momentary victories, they are a mercifully short-sighted group. Visibility. This is about the long haul. Visibility. This is about being on the news every single night. Fighting. Winning some. Losing too many. But still fighting. And visible. Visible on television. Visible in our everyday lives. Visible to kids who are struggling with being gay. Visible to their parents. There's not a more powerful political statement than being out of the closet. That simply can not be overstated. To paraphrase Harvey Milk: When they know us they don't vote against us.

Visibility.

Things will change when our elected officials fear not voting for equal rights. When the negative repercussions to their livelihood stem from voting "no" on marriage equality. I pray that the fury we felt this week when the New York Senate voted to deny us our civil rights will not ebb, but instead will fester and propel us to the voting booths come election time. If that happens - if those cowardly men and women lose their jobs because of the vote they cast against equality - then last week will have been a victory for us. Because their successors will understand that bigotry is no longer a bankable voting block, but equality is.

Save the Children

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:17:00 +0000

New York isn't getting marriage equality and it looks as if New Jersey won't be getting it either. Thirty one states have already allowed the rights of LGBT Americans to be voted on. And thirty one states have voted to deny LGTB Americans their rights.

Why are our opponents so successful?

Fear. They manipulate it brilliantly.

That is not surprising. They know exactly what chords strike maximum horror in their listeners. They know exactly what to say. They know exactly how to say it.

Children are their weapons.

The children. Fear for the children. Teaching the children. Protect the children. Inappropriate for children. Children. Children. Children.

What I have found more and more frustrating is the response to these charges by our gay leaders. Largely, silence. They stick to the legal matters being debated: "We're not talking about children and schools. We're talking about marriage equality." Or, "What about protecting the children of gay families?" I find this utterly maddening.

By not respecting, listening to and responding to their central and most powerful arguments, we're leaving ourselves open to having already existing fear and prejudice easily manipulated. We must confront the fears being stirred, not ignore them. We're not doing ourselves any favors by turning our backs on their most potent weapon. Quite the opposite. By not discussing it, we're giving it tacit approval. They talk about the children, and we try to get back to the facts: adults getting married. It sometimes gives the impression that we're the ones changing the subject.

I'll never understand why we don't delve into it head first.

Our opponents are forever repeating the mantra that they don't dislike gay people. That they would never condone violence against an L, G, B or T person. And that old chestnut: They have gay friends. On the surface, they wish us well. This has a specific purpose: it absolves guilt. It allows those who wish to deny us our rights to feel good about their hate. Or at least not feel bad about it. This is a vital part of the emotional chess game they are playing. People might harbor prejudices, but they feel guilty about them. Remove that guilt and it's open season.

But they are lying. They do not wish us well. They wish us gone.

This isn't about marriage equality. And this isn't about workplace discrimination. It's not even about protecting religious freedoms (another red herring they throw out into the ethers to great effect). These are just window dressing.

Their goal is to eradicate homosexuality.

If you think I'm taking too great a leap here - if you think I've lost my mind and have gone off the rails, consider this simple question: Why is it bad to teach our children homosexuality? (Whatever that means.)

There can only be one answer: because homosexuality is bad. Right away, their "we love gay people and are just trying to maintain 'traditional marriage'" argument is shattered. They outwardly wish us well, yet their arguments are based on the notion that homosexuality is some kind of affliction.

The second unspoken and, frustratingly, unquestioned tenet of their "don't teach homosexuality to children" argument is that if we don't talk about it, don't allow it into acceptable society, don't make it commonplace, don't allow it to exist where people can see it, don't give it legal backing by repealing DOMA and enacting ENDA, keep it in the shadows and away from impressionable children, it will cease to exist.

Succinctly: homosexuality is immoral and can be taught. If we don't expose our children to it, they won't grow up gay. No more gay children, no more gay adults.

That is what they are saying. That is what reverberates with people who have limited or no experience with the LGBT community. And that is what never gets addressed.

While we are busy sticking to the issues being debated, they are winning the emotional war.

Terrorism, Hate Crimes & Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:52:00 +0000

Terrorism. Hate crimes.

Both acts aim to send a message through violence. They are the same crime, differentiated by scope. Terrorism is a hate crime against a society. A hate crime is terrorism against a minority.

Roughly one month ago I watched as some of our Representatives and Senators stood on the floor of Congress and argued passionately to exclude LGBT Americans from hate crimes law. Inclusion, they said, would be tantamount to thought police. It would lead to censorship. These Congressmen and women explained that a violent act is punishable; the intent behind it is not. Punishing intent, they said, is unconstitutional.

Punish the action. Not the thought.

That is what they firmly, steadfastly believe.

Or is it?

For the past week, I have been glued to the unfolding story of the shooting at Fort Hood. I have watched as we, as a nation, attempt to understand the horrific events that occurred there. We want to know whether the shooting was a random act of violence or terrorism.

To that end, we have delved into the shooter's psyche. We have looked into his past. Into his religion. Into his connections. Into his emails. His work history. Past PowerPoint presentations. His anger. We are desperate to know the reasons for his actions - the why. We demand to know if his violence had a specific, broader purpose.

To those who voted against hate crimes protection for LGBT Americans, I ask these simple questions: Why does investigating intent not lead to censorship when the crime might be a terrorist act? Why is it only unconstitutional to take intent and speech into consideration when the violence committed might be a hate crime against a member of the LGBT community? Why haven't I seen even one of you on t.v. decrying the unconstitutionality of investigating this man's motivations? How are your deeply held moral beliefs so easily altered?

I fail to see a difference between harming Americans because they are Americans and harming gays because they are gay.

I do not fail to see your hypocrisy; your bigotry.

All things being equal, his intentions ought to be irrelevant and off limits, right?

If a man were to walk into an LGBT Center and open fire while screaming, "The Bible tells me that faggots burn in hell," you would argue to punish his actions, not his motivation; citing freedom of speech and religion.

If the same man walked into that same LGBT Center and opened fire while screaming about Jihad and American fascists, you wouldn't be quite so torn about trampling his inalienable rights.

If an American gets killed because they're gay, not so bad. If a gay person gets killed because they're American, look out.

Your message is crystal clear: hatred of country is neither understandable nor acceptable. Hatred of gays is both. Hatred of country that turns violent harms innocent people. Hatred of gays that turns violent just harms gays.

Are We Willing?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:39:00 +0000

I think it's time to change the fight. Aren't we all tired of waiting for our politicians to do the right thing? Doing the right thing is not enough to motivate politicians. They will be motivated when they have no choice. Aren't we all tired of complaining to ourselves on facebook? Of being angry and upset and offended every time some jackass goes into a voting booth to decide whether or not to extend to us a full set of rights?

I think it's time for us to start filling up the jails. I think it's time for us to put ourselves in harm's way. I think it's time for us to break some laws and get arrested. I think it's time to fill up the army recruitment centers with the intention of joining the army and then refuse to leave when we tell them we're gay. I think it's time to fill up the court houses from coast to coast and then refuse to leave when they tell us we can't get a marriage license. I think it's time to stop paying our taxes until we receive every benefit that others enjoy. I think it's time for us to stop working for companies that don't extend benefits to our partners - companies who hide conveniently behind the protective shield of the fact that we can't legally get married in most places. I think it's time to stop giving our money to companies that support causes or politicians who are hellbent on keeping us from achieving equality.

I think it's time for us to wake up and stop being complicit in our own second class status.

I think it's time that we use non-violent, civil disobedience to cripple our country in every way that we can until our country treats us as equals.

I just wonder if I have what it takes. I wonder if we, as a group, have what it takes. The Montgomery bus boycott lasted 13 months. 13 months of walking. To work. From work. Getting up early. Getting home late. Doing it again tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow. 13 months. Cold. Heat. Rain. 13 months. Their opponents did every disgusting thing they could think of to break the boycott from physical intimidation to bending laws, breaking laws & passing laws. 13 months. I wonder if we have the gumption to live with discomfort and fear and possibility of jail or violence or death in order to get what we want. I wonder if we're willing to be cold. Or hungry. I wonder. I wonder what we're willing to give to ensure that no longer will our rights be up for a vote.

I wonder - are we willing?

A Message Sent

noreply@blogger.com (Roger) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:34:00 +0000

Gay people confuse me.

Today the Senate passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

I've been reading for months, if not years, some voices in the LGBT community expressing the opinion that this is not a worthy battle. That this law isn't going to stop anyone from committing a hate crime. That we have bigger fish to fry. That it's simply a waste of time and won't matter.

They leave me scratching my head in exasperation.

To me the passage of this law (the president has promised to sign it) is cause for celebration. A giant fucking celebration.

It is one step forward.

And I can't help but wonder: how is any forward motion is bad?

Will it stop anyone from committing a hate crime against a gay person? My guess is no, probably not. We have a lot of laws and they tend not to prevent a lot of people from doing a lot of things. Should we just get rid of all laws since it seems that people break them anyway?

Equality is about one thing and one thing only: I have the same set of rules as you. That's it. No more. No less. It's very simple.

This is why anti-marriage equality gay people confuse me so much. I know plenty of straight people who have been with their partner for years or even decades who have chosen not to get married. I've yet to hear any one of them express the opinion that because they don't want to get married, it should be illegal for any other straight people to get married.

I'm equally perplexed by the cynicism or even downright anger towards the Hate Crimes Bill. It's importance isn't in its stiffer sentencing. It's importance lies in its message. When the president signs it, he will be sending a message, a specific message, that it is not o.k. to attack a person because he or she is or is perceived to be L, G, B, or T. And the LGBT community will be that much closer to equality. Much in the same way our legal inequality is part of the collective unconscious of this country, this law will become part of our collective unconscious. One day it will be taken for granted. And that will be a good thing.

The road is long and slow. And requires a shift. A shift in understanding. In sensitivity. In thinking.

Today that long, slow road towards equality was smoothed out a little, making it easier to take the next step and the next step and the next step. Until there are no more steps to take. Until this is all a boring history lesson.