A few weeks ago, myself, along with Joe Sudbay over at AMERICABlog and Rick Jacobs at the Courage Campaign, were chatting about all this. We agreed that (a) while debate over tactics etc. can be healthy, the division can threaten to undermine votes for LGBT equality coming up on Election Day and (b) Despite the headlines, this community is more united than divided. There are a lot of voices in the pro-equality chorus, and like brothers and sisters in a family, we all sing in our own unique way. But when push comes to shove, we are always singing the same song.

So we decided to ask some of the bigger names in all these headlines if they would set their differences aside and come together on a common cause: that cause being re-electing Rep. Patrick Murphy, who led the fight to pass repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the House.

Continuing our series of live chats with selected pro-equality candidates in competitive races (last week's was with Paul Hodes) in which Bilerico Project is partnering with OpenLeft, AMERICABlog, Pam's House Blend, and Good As You, today Mayor Steve Pougnet will be taking questions at 2 PM EST. Steve sent this in last night:

This isn't anything new for GOProud. I wrote here about how they're the same organization that endorsed Mary Bono Mack, a woman who voted against DADT repeal, refuses to support an inclusive ENDA, voted to ban same-sex adoption in DC, and refuses to take a position on Prop 8, over the man who would be the first openly gay married parent elected to Congress, Mayor Steve Pougnet. A clear contrast here, but they didn't care. I wrote here how they tripped over each other to defend Rep. Charles Djou (R-HI), who said he voted for DADT repeal because of that serious problem we all know exists in the military:

DJOU: On that particular issue, it comes from personal experience. I have served for nearly 10 years now in the United States Army Reserve. What concerned me about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is that it just simply doesn't work. And I have seen too many instances as an army reservist, soldiers would sign up for a re-enlistment bonus. Get this gigantic sum from the American taxpayer. And then as soon as the unit gets called up to mobilize to Iraq and Afghanistan, they suddenly claim they are gay, with no prior indication of that whatsoever. Get the discharge and keep the bonus. That's wrong, that's unfair and that's why this policy should be changed.

Ohhkay. When LGBT activists rolled their eyes, GOProud ED Jimmy LaSalvia snapped.

I am a big believer that if you're going to make a criticism, be specific. If it's of a tactic, prove that there's a better one. If it's of an organization or group of people, show what the problems are and/or who the bad actors are.

That's why I cringe lately when I hear a lot of friends and colleagues in the LGBT community have been (rightfully) complaining about "the Democrats" in Congress and the White House, and how "the Democrats" don't deserve LGBT support this fall. Because every time I hear it, I think back to the aftermath of the New York State Senate vote on marriage equality, where all of the post-vote narrative- including from Democratic State Senator and bill sponsor Tom Duane- was "This is all the Democrats' fault." I wrote at the time that aside from Democrats being responsible for the bill getting as far as it did in the first place, such rhetoric makes people who aren't into politics identify "Democrat" with "sucks" or "no better than Republicans"- something that's not helpful when strong progressives run. It also creates this false notion that the solution is simply to engage in as many primaries as possible, even if there are Republicans who are equally vulnerable. And while we've been kicking anti-equality State Senators to the curb- another one last night- we'll never get a vote on marriage again under Republican control.

The same is true on ENDA, DOMA and other issues under Speaker Boehner. If we're ever going to build a pro-equality, and progressive majority, in Congress, our community has to seek and find our allies. That's a one-by-one process, not a party-by-party process. The LGBT community has to continue to find our enemies and our champions, and that's what I want to talk about today.

Join me on the flip for details on Rep. Paul Hodes joining us for a salon at 6 PM EST tonight, and what we'll be talking about.

As someone who enjoys my Sunday papers and picking up newsstand copies of other papers and newsmagazines, I'm as concerned as others. But for all the assessments of print media, and assumptions that everything is moving to online, one question has never been asked: how is online gay media faring?

So I thought it would be an interesting detour to ask a range of those who work in gay online media. Out of concerns resulting from the Lavers piece, I did not want anyone to be quoted out of context or misinterpreted, so I used the "Topic A" format from the Washington Post with a simple question "What is the state of gay online media?" Responses in about 300 words or less are printed below. While unfortunately not as in-depth as a full exploration of the topic, it does give a window into gay online media, and I hope inspires a longer piece. Some look at misconceptions of online media, while others explore the relationship between print and online. They are all interesting, and they are all on the flip.

We must stand up for marriage because marriage is the foundation of our society. A strong marriage, rooted in strong morals and values makes a strong family. Groups of these strong families make strong neighborhoods. These strong neighborhoods in turn make strong towns, cities and states. And it are these towns, cities and states that make up our Nation. Everything is connected! Protect marriage and the family and you are protecting the Naton. (typo theirs)

Um, right.

On our side, Freedom to Marry is responding in kind. More details in the extended entry.

Today, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is kicking off a two-day meeting to reconsider the FDA ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men (MSM). The current policy has been in place since 1985 when no HIV testing was available and little was known about HIV/AIDS. Since then, while many policies towards blood donations have changed, and HIV testing has significantly advanced to the point where a permanent ban no longer makes sense, the ban still remains in place. The ban is also discriminatory in that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men because it does not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk MSM, banning potential MSM donors who are HIV-negative and consistently practice safe sex or are in long-term monogamous relationships, while others with a significantly higher risk of HIV infection are subject to less restrictive deferrals or none at all. The ban also contributes to a dangerously and chronically low blood supply in a country in which approximately just 5% of all eligible donors give.

The NYC and DC City Councils have recently passed resolutions by votes of 42-1 and 13-0, respectively, urging a revision of the ban. Today, we are asking that you join their voices in calling for a more sensible policy.

Dr. Jerry Holmberg is the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee, and is tasked with accepting formal public comments from both organizations and individuals. He has made his e-mail available for this purpose. Please take a minute to e-mail Dr. Holmberg via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov and urge him and the committee to revise the ban on blood donations from MSM.

So while the President has a role in this, not only is it incorrect to focus on the Administration and wait for action, but I've concluded by this point that we can't count on the Administration lifting a finger to help. We have to get this done the old-fashioned way: contacting Congress ourselves. Gen. Shaliskhavili did his part with a well-worded op-ed in the WaPo this weekend. Let's take the ball and run with it.

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a vote on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The House is also expected to vote late this week after the SASC votes. If we lose this vote, it will be a significant blow even if repeal passes in the House. Or, put another way, we simply cannot afford to lose this vote.

As Dr. Weiss wrote last week, ENDA is already hanging by a thread. We are on the razor's edge of seeing repeal of DADT going the same way, but we are also on the cusp of winning. The Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121, and it's time to pick up the phone and ask your members to support repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

If you're gay and mobile, I bet you've almost definitely heard of Grindr, a mobile application allowing guys to see which cute and interesting guys are immediately nearby, no matter where they are, to facilitate meeting and, ahem, often further activities should they, ahem, arise.

Today, I unveil an idea for a new application that's sure to revolutionize gay dating, social networking, and (hopefully) make me millions in the process.*#

*Anyone who's reading this and a mobile app developer, drop me a line!

#To anyone considering stealing this idea, I will make bad karma for you the rest of your life.

At my home blog, OpenLeft.com, where I write and organize campaigns around LGBT and broader progressive issues, we have our e-mail list, OpenLeft Action, which we use for opportunities to make progressive dents around the country. Our subscribers will tell you we e-mail them probably one quarter as much as other progressive organizations. That's because we know what it's like to get a deluge of e-mail, and so we only take action and contact them when we see a really key opportunity to make a difference (you can sign up for OpenLeft's action alerts).

Nonetheless, like any organization, folks want to unsubscribe, which is understandable. For my own interest and to figure out how we can be a better political action organization, I always read through the unsubscribe comments.

About 80-85% of them are because folks receive too much e-mail in their inbox overall, but some of them are pretty far out there. So today, I present you with the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) I've found on LGBT action alerts we've sent out. Even better, vote for your favorite in the extended entry.

Enjoy. Have a good rest of the weekend.

So it's been a very Glee week for me. Last night I Gleefully downloaded (rimshot!) the 3rd album of the Glee Season 1 soundtrack-

Warning: Spoiler below in italics.

The highlight so far - to be premiered on this Tuesday's episode - is a jazzy, sultry, slow duet version of Lady Gaga's Poker Face featuring Idina Menzel and Lea Michelle!

OK, you can go back to reading now. Anyway, on top of the album download, Tuesday's episode was one of the most brilliant I've seen so far this season - extremely heartwarming about finding one's dreams, hopes, and desires. It filled the human need for that kind of hope in one's life.

Then, as if it couldn't get any better, via the Advocate, we find it can:

Dr. Jillian Weiss has written here before about Democrats' excuses for not bringing ENDA up. At this point, it's become political fear. There are any number of Dems considering voting against both ENDA and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Administration hasn't lifted a finger to help repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and even actively undermined it. Despite large majorities, the party which always receives the overwhelming majority of gay votes at all levels of government is not delivering on its promises.

So, it's time to re-evaluate this relationship.

OpenLeft, my home blog, is joining with our friends at the Courage Campaign, AMERICABlog and CREDO Action to write an open letter on behalf of the gay community to Dems who are considering throwing us under the bus.

The letter is after the jump, with more on why we're doing this.

Today is HIV Vaccine Awareness Day, so I have to take a moment to get personal on you.

I'm in the middle of reading And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts, one of the first major books on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It's about the system failure of institutions and communities - the government, the medical community, the gay community - to respond to a rising epidemic. It is set in the early 1980s when the infection was spreading like wildfire. Since then, treatment has become available and we've made great strides in treating individuals living with HIV/AIDS.

And yet we are losing. Today, for every person that begins treatment for HIV infection, 2-3 more people become newly infected. History has shown us that no major epidemic has ever been successfully controlled without a vaccine. Which brings me to today.

Many of us take vaccines for granted. We've just achieved a cervical cancer vaccine. Every winter, everyone flocks to get a flu vaccine to the degree that there's always a shortage. Every child gets an MMR vaccine. Hepatitis B. Polio. On and on and on. People know how critical vaccines are. What seems to be be unknown is that these vaccines do not come out of thin air. They come from people volunteering to help develop them so that the rest of our country, and the world, can live longer.

And that's where you come in.

He also called for consumers to view safer porn in order to send a message to companies that produce gay porn.

In the extended entry, I explore whether that is an effective call to action, finding other methods of organizing that may be more effective, and meeting consumers where they are rather than where many wish them to be.

He wasn't comfortable with me publishing his response or naming him, but his complaint boiled down to why the LGBT movement is prioritizing repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - which, in his eyes, affects a tiny fraction of LGBT people in this country - over passage of other issues, notably ENDA, given that employment discrimination against people based on sexual orientation is still legal in 29 states, and legal based on gender identity or expression in 38 states.

I think this question is an important and valid one, and I have a number of thoughts on what's wrong with the question itself, and why it isn't entirely up to "the LGBT movement." More in the extended entry.