(By the way, this post is just me talking about myself, so if you’re here for news or commentary, sorry! But hey, I might end up saying something poignant about life—you never know.)

Year 25 was definitely unlike any previous year of my life. It was the first full year that I did not live my life according to prescription. There were the 18 years of grade school and the 6 of higher education, and then I got this wacky year where nothing was according to plan. What a good thing that was!

You know, I could easily bemoan the economy and the challenges of the job search, and certainly there are those out there eager to mock me for it. A full year has passed and you still don’t have a real job, Zack? Yeah, it’s true. Get over it. It’s actually been a great year, because I’ve had to find a way to make meaning of my life despite not fitting the mold I’d always had in my head for how it was supposed to progress.

It’s fun having a September birthday, because I can measure years of my life parallel to school years. This was my first non-school year (and hopefully my last). But the Fall still brought very important changes, because it was at the beginning of October when I launched the redesign of my blog. Two weeks later I was reporting from the National Equality March. Suddenly, I felt like I had a legitimate blog and I was connecting with other bloggers and activists who were excited about my work. It might not sound like much, but those changes really set the tone for the year that went on to include the Prop 8 Trial, Creating Change, working for the Central PA LGBT Center, developing the Queer and Queerer Podcast with Peterson, and Netroots Nation.

In some ways, it’s kind of felt like an intermission, but in other ways, it’s just been a refreshing break. I think we all need to take time to explore life and find ourselves in spite of what anyone wants for us. Heck, it wasn’t what I wanted for myself, but I definitely have no regrets!

In addition to being a test of creativity in the absence of structure, it was also a test of resiliency. If you had asked me on September 8, 2009 if I would still be confident and optimistic if a year later I still didn’t have a job that put my degree to use, I probably wouldn’t have been thrilled with speculating. But here I am, and I have so much work to be proud of, even if I’m not “on track.”

Truly, we spend our whole lives reconciling who we are against who others want us to be. In any of these struggles, we come out (often literally) stronger because we believed in ourselves. I can look back on year 25 as a year of transition, but a year in which I stayed true to myself in spite of circumstance. And now I can look forward to a new quarter-century with a piece of myself that I never would have known I had.

Cheers to you my friends and readers, and everyone who has been a part of my life! Cheers to life! Cheers to making it work!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch0BALz2wnE

I’ve noticed that the memes ebb and flow, and lately a few memes have reemerged as quite prominent talking points, particularly among Tea Party conservatives around race. In an attempt to reject accusations of racism, conservative leaders like Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah of World Net Daily have embraced an addictive new blend of the “Reverse Discrimination“, “Colorblind,” and “Friend/Expert” memes that only accentuates their white privilege.

It looks like this: You call us racist? We support all people, and the proof is that people of color stand with us. We are the ones under attack by your false accusations! You’re the racists.

Two weeks ago, I got an email from Joseph Farah entitled, “Have Dems re-enslaved blacks?” He quoted Kevin Jackson of the Black Conservative Coalition defending the Tea Party, claiming that reducing the size of government would amount to “another Emancipation Proclamation” and “This time, even the white folks get freed.”

Farah goes onto say that affirmative action has hurt blacks because their promotions no longer have to do with merit “welfare-style redistribution schemes” have hurt blacks by creating greater dependency and less self-reliance; and that all of the accusations of racism demonstrate that the word is losing its power and meaning.

Essentially, he’s trying to blame the left for racism. He wants the black community to see conservatives as allies but wants the white conservatives to feel like the real victims because of how their precious money has been wasted. After you make sense of his motives, his words become that much more obvious:

In many ways today the black community is less functional than it was during the worst days of the Jim Crow era. Back then, the family structure – the very building block of community – was still intact. Today, the white family is disintegrating the way the black family did following the manipulations of paternalistic government policies.

In effect, it seems, the Democrats, “progressives” and leftists are trying to put whites in bondage to them and government the way they re-enslaved blacks.

It’s absurd, and of course he’s still hawking that preposterous “Negrophilia” book I wrote about before, which is the epitome of the Expert meme: a black man making money off the black community by throwing them under the bus for the rich whites.

Last week, I got a promotion for World Net Daily’s Whistleblower magazine, entitled “Obama and the New Racism.” Echoing Glenn Beck’s accusations of Obama’s racism, this magazine tests the limits of the Reverse Discrimination meme. The first nine words of the promo should be a huge red flag:

America – without question the least racist nation on earth – is witnessing an outrageous upsurge in hardcore racism during the administration of Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president.

Yeah. The United States set the bar high with its truth and reconciliation commissions. Blacks, Latinos, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans have full respect and equality, Central American immigrants are perfectly welcome, and Middle Easterners are just as free to worship anywhere as any other group. Right.

And Joseph Farah has no hesitation when it comes to showing that he has no clue what social justice is about:

Martin Luther King Jr., dreamed of a colorblind America.

Ummmm… no. That’s what white people who don’t want their white privilege called into question dream of.

Whistleblower’s editor, David Kupelian, really steps in it with an irony too genius even for him to see:

We’re witnessing today a textbook example of the rotten totalitarian tactic called,‘Accuse others of the evil you do.’ Thus, not only do the Obama administration and its media propagandists accuse good and decent Americans of being racists just because they object to having their country stolen. But those currently in power – in pursuit of the twisted Marxist notion of ‘social justice’ – have adopted an utterly racist modus operandi for running the affairs of the nation. This betrayal of the dream of Martin Luther King, and of all decent Americans, is a story that needs to be told.

They’re pissed that whites don’t have as much power as they used to, but that doesn’t make them racist! In case you weren’t sure, both Farah and Kupelian are quite white.

Glenn Beck recently “amended” his comment about Obama being racist; Beck now says that Obama practices “liberation theology.” Given how little Obama has actually talked about his own faith, this seems to be quite a stretch, and honestly just another codeword for “Marxist.” (At least liberation theology is Christian, not Muslim.)

Beck’s recent Restoring Honor rally showed just how prevalent the “Colorblind” and “Friend/Expert” memes are becoming. Much of the message of the day was sugar-coated in platitudes about freedom for all. Of course, you have a bunch of white people there to say something needs fixed restored, so it’s a tricky message to navigate. It helps them, though, to have folks like “Dr.” Alveda King there to disgrace the work and words of her uncle. A quisling if ever there were one, she gives the Tea Party a false sense of validation, just because they have one more black person speaking on their behalf. They never point out that all the black people who speak on their behalf (Alveda King, Kevin Jackson, Erik Rush, etc.) all make tons of money for what they say.

In fact, the few black people that show are celebrated at Tea Party events, because the white people are just that insecure that they might be racist. Take a look at this clip:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA7GvNYAVyY

At the end of the day, there are several serious problems with this approach. First, it’s white people saying they understand race relations better than anybody else. I’ll admit that I’m a white person talking about race, but I’m not trying to tell people of color what their experience is; I’m telling other white people how wrong they are. Second, it’s a painting of race as a white-black issue, ignoring all the inherent racism in the Tea Party’s immigration platform and libertarian politics in general. Third, it continues the distortion of white privilege and the enabling of real racism in our country.

The only way to counter this nonsense is with education. Privilege is not easy to understand nor can it even be fun to talk about. Nevertheless, we must try to make clear the hurt that Tea Party racism causes. I hope that my little Meme Collection can be helpful in this regard.

As far as I’m concerned, America is still one of the most racist countries on earth.

Sound familiar? That’s because a federal judge recently stated as a finding of fact that the very tactics FOTF is using are motivated by discrimination and animus. (See the Prop 8 Findings of Fact 44, 46, 58, 62, 67, 71, 76, and 77.) Autumn Sandeen has a great rundown of all the holes in Focus on the Family’s approach that you should definitely read in addition to this post.

As a result of this new campaign, CNN covered the “controversy” last week in the 11-minute segment below. I think this report from Anderson Cooper is demonstrative of the weak state of mainstream media coverage and the real damage that CNN’s “equal time” philosophy does to our community. In fact, I’m going to make the case to you in this post that Cooper is actually enabling FOTF throughout the whole interview. This is a sad reminder of how little support we get from having a gay man as one of the mainstream media’s most popular anchors. Get it buffering and I’ll walk you through this disaster of fact-finding.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUXkY5ejJg8

The opening of the segment is deceptive. AC is talking to us about kids who commit suicide because they were harassed for acting gay. We also get to see Carl Walker-Hoover’s mother testifying before Congress. This is powerful because 1) it shows us how serious a concern anti-gay bullying is and 2) it reminds us that lots of straight kids are hurt by this kind of bullying. It’s a great opening to the segment, but you can forget about it, because it never comes up in the conversation. Not once.

In fact, the whole point of this segment is to put Focus on the Family’s point of view on a pedestal. It’s not really a controversy; it’s just an extremist group voicing their same-old dissent based on their same-old beliefs. And no journalism is taking place here, because there is no scrutiny. It’s just sensationalism. It’s 11 minutes of television that amplify the dissenting voice without offering any critical analysis. Focus on the Family is not held to any accountability for what they say or believe.

In addition to being poor journalism, it’s also an upholding of religious privilege. It’s the respect meme, the foundation of all religious belief. We have to respect the beliefs and that’s that. Why? If we ever find out, it sure won’t be from CNN. I’m going to give you a blow-by-blow, because I want you to see how much Anderson Cooper protects Focus on the Family throughout the discussion. I’ll sum it up at the end so you can see how bad it is.

AC segues to the discussion (1:26) by saying (paraphrased for effect), Here’s what the Safe Schools Improvement Act would do, but Focus on the Family objects, so let’s hear them out! So we meet the players. Candi Cushman is FOTF’s talking head, while Eliza Byard speaks for GLSEN, and Rosalind Wiseman, who wrote the book that inspired Mean Girls, is there for color commentary. You’ll note that Cooper stumbles over both of the latter two ladies’ names. Then, AC gives Cushman the first word (1:54). This sets up Focus on the Family to take the offense and make their case first, meaning the other two will be stuck playing defense most of the interview.

Cooper sets up his first question by paraphrasing FOTF’s policy in his own words (thus validating it with his authority as a respected reporter) and then asking the following about anti-gay bullying (2:13):

How do you suggest stopping that if you can’t mention anything about gays and lesbians?

This question is terribly weak, and kind of stupid when you think about it. It gives FOTF’s point of view the benefit of the doubt, when there is actually plenty to be doubtful about! It doesn’t really scrutinize their stance at all, though Autumn will be the first to show you there is plenty to scrutinize.

After Cushman spews her nonsense about wanting “to protect any child for any reason” as a cover for just not talking about gays, Cooper pushes her, but not in any way that challenges what she has said, merely to help her further clarify her point of view. It’s not so hard to watch it and perceive it as if he’s actually helping her get it all out. It’s odd to see it in that light, but that’s the effect of his “pushing.” This is most evident around 3:20 when Cushman gets out her other talking point about “not focusing on the characteristics of the person victim because it doesn’t matter why the victim was targeted. “

Now (at 3:30), Cooper puts this on Byard of GLSEN. He says that FOTF has challenged GLSEN of “promoting the gay agenda” as if 1) FOTF is a respectable authority on gay issues (though the Southern Poverty Law Center says otherwise) and 2) the “gay agenda” is a real thing, a legitimate threat, and something GLSEN has to answer for. This is quite different from a moment ago when he uncritically reiterating FOTF’s stance. What gives?

Byard is great, though. She points out that the Safe Schools bill does everything Cushman wants plus pays special attention to specific characteristics because the data shows it makes a difference. This frames the argument well, because it shows that FOTF wants to do less than is possible and that there is data to show why they’re wrong in wanting that.

What does Cooper do? He ignores this point with another weak question for Cushman (4:20), designed to be perceived as a challenge without echoing the legitimate points Byard just made. He asks if FOTF would be opposed to talk about race, disability, or other traits that kids might get bullied for. This isn’t an awful question, but it protects Cushman from having to respond to Byard (and Byard’s data).

What’s most pathetic here is that Cushman dodges the question anyway. She says she’s worried if you start specifying kinds of bullying, you might end up leaving some kids out. I’m sure she prefers not talking about any of the Presidents specifically in U.S. History because if you spend too much time on Washington and Jefferson you might leave out Millard Fillmore.

Then, after plugging the True Tolerance website, she whips out the old parents-who-are-concerned-about-”homosexuality lessons presented to their kindergartners” nonsense, playing on age-old stereotypes of fear. The implication here is that kids will be taught to be gay and that that’s a bad thing. It’s exactly what Dr. Chauncey testified about in the Prop 8 trial. It’s bunk. But hey, FOTF doesn’t “think it’s necessary,” so that’s enough for a controversy.

Cooper almost doesn’t challenge Cushman, but let’s Byard jump in (5:26) and reiterate the data-driven facts about the importance of mentioning sexual orientation in anti-bullying education. She is calm and eloquent in her presentation of GLSEN’s work. Does Cooper follow-up on the facts? No, he jumps over to get Wiseman in the conversation (6:06).

Again, he shows favor with FOTF by asking “Do you see an agenda being spread?” as if Byard hadn’t just clarified what GLSEN does and has found through multiple studies. Wiseman kind of throws the whole mess under the bus by claiming you’ll only get a 45-minute assembly out of the initiative, and then oddly echoes Cushman’s talking points (about all students) to agree with Byard’s points (naming the behavior). I think she actually says something worthwhile at some point about homophobia and masculinity that could’ve been brilliant, but it’s generally lost in her meanderings.

So what does Cooper do? Invite Cushman to talk freely again about what Focus on the Family believes, of course (7:30)! Cushman goes on again about wanting to defend the gay kid without actually defending him for being gay. Her “they’re all God’s children” is just a repackaging of color-blindness for sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter that the kid’s gay, just protect him for being a kid. (Of course, by not validating the kid’s identity, the teacher would essentially be validating the anti-gay bullying. That couldn’t possibly be what FOTF wants, could it? Oh wait, yes it could.)

Now, kudos to Wiseman for jumping in here and calling out Cushman (8:08) that her perspective “does not in any way reflect the reality of what schools are like.” She makes up for her earlier incoherence with a very coherent smackdown, suggesting Cushman is oblivious to “concrete reality.”

How does AC respond to this outburst? He challenges Wiseman by reiterating FOTF’s language and saying, “What’s wrong with just that?” Now, some might say he’s just facilitating the discussion without personally taking a point of view, but he is taking a point of view. He’s offering a defense of what Focus on the Family is trying to say! Wiseman (8:50) offers a weak explanation for respecting victims at their word but is about as ambiguous in her words as the ambiguity she’s trying to describe.

Cooper then comes back to challenge GLSEN’s Byard again! (9:30):

There are certainly a lot of parents who don’t believe that being gay or being lesbian is okay and don’t want their kids—especially very young kids—exposed to that. Do you think this should be mandatory for everybody?

He’s essentially agreeing that teaching kids that some of their friends might have two mommies or two daddies might be an awful thing. He’s also validating their scare tactics—you know, the ones that demonize gay people… like Anderson Cooper.

Byard gives another eloquent response (9:43). She talks about data, findings, evidence, and facts. After she’s finished, Cooper ignores what she has said (again) to give Cushman the final word (10:25). Cushman talks about scared parents and sexual content again, but is again left unchallenged with her foundationless, stereotype-driven, fear-baiting tactics. Cooper thanks them and ends the discussion.

Now, let’s review everything Anderson Cooper, star gay journalist, did in this segment:

» He opens the segment by talking about bully-driven suicides (which he never refers to again).
» 1:26 -- He introduces Focus on the Family’s concern about the Safe Schools Improvement Act as reason enough to talk about it for a full segment.
» 1:36 -- He welcomes the guests, happening to stumble over the names of the two guests who will disagree with Focus on the Family.
» 1:54 -- He reiterates FOTF’s position and then lets their spokesperson, Candi Cushman, speak first.
» 2:41 -- He pushes Cushman to further clarify her position.
» 3:30 -- He challenges GLSEN’s spokesperson, Eliza Byard, to refute the “gay agenda.”
» 4:20 -- He ignores Byard’s points to throw another easy question at Cushman.
» 5:26 -- He almost lets Cushman go unchallenged but lets Byard jump in.
» 6:06 -- He again ignores Byard’s points, bringing author Rosalind Wiseman into the conversation by also challenging her about the “gay agenda.”
» 7:30 -- He throws another easy question to Cushman.
» 8:27 -- He responds to Wiseman’s retort of Cushman by reiterating FOTF’s points and challenging her to refute them.
» 9:30 -- He reiterates another FOTF talking point to Byard, challenging her to defend them.
» 10:25 -- He gives Cushman the last word, again without challenging her on anything.

Essentially, he protects Focus on the Family the entire segment. The segment, itself, exists solely to amplify and validate their message. They are held to no scrutiny. In just 11 minutes, two completely unequal points of view are conflated through “equal time” to having equal footing. It’s a massacre of knowledge, and a complete journalistic failing.

Now, you might have read all that and said, “Yeah, but he was just facilitating, and this is just one segment, and Zack, you’re just making a big deal out of nothing.”

No. You’re wrong. CNN does this all the time. Tony Perkins is an AC360 contributor and Maggie Gallagher is also on there all the time. They make news about Bryan Fischer’s extremist statements then give him airtime. They refer to ex-gay therapists like Richard Cohen and Exodus International. And every time, they pull this “equal time” crap that ends up validating the side that has no footing. There is no scrutiny. There is no journalistic integrity.

I’ll stop just short of calling Anderson Cooper a quisling. It’s a shame he cares more about how CNN wants him to do his job than his own community. But CNN has a neutrality suppository so far up its butt that it doesn’t know right from wrong. We need to start holding them to a higher standard. This talk show sensationalism is hurting our community. Let’s not let them call it journalism any more.

Now, all you Mac-folks can point and laugh. I’m not becoming a Mac. Your OS has advantages and disadvantages as does mine. You have preferences and so do I. Would you have gotten this glitch? Probably not. That alone does not make your OS superior. I would rather have to deal with an occasional glitch than a proprietary company that censors the content I can access.

Though the past few days have been stressful, I can say this about the process:

» I was able to fix the problem myself (i.e. I didn’t have to send it away).

» It didn’t cost me a penny to fix.

» I didn’t lose anything.

» My computer is running more smoothly now as a result of the maintenance I ran on it.

So, I’m all good now, and will probably resume regular blogging after this holiday weekend.

I have to say, I was surprised at how much my mood was affected by the availability of my computer. I certainly have no trouble when I’m in situations where I know I won’t have access, but when I should have access and the tools I’m used to using aren’t serving me the way they should, I was rather distraught. I felt out of the loop, disconnected.

You know, there are a lot of people who believe in some higher connectedness or consciousness. I think anything ethereal is preposterous. But, I do think that the internet is reshaping the human consciousness in a very observable way. The way we relate to each other and the globalization of our society are quite marvelous, and I’m not sure we’ve all quite realized what an impact these changes have had on each of us as individuals.

At any rate, I’m back!

And here’s a tip for all you computer users out there: Just in case of whatever, back up your system!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoG4PlEPtY

Zack and Peterson work on mending their relationship after the Joe Gee debacle by discussing fundamentalist Christianity. Angela from Austria thinks that fundamentalist Christianity is a great way to absorb “non-thinkers” who might be recruited by more dangerous groups (like neo-Nazis). From the conversation that ensues, you almost wouldn’t know that Peterson’s a believer and Zack isn’t. ALSO, more lesbian movies coming your way!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Click here to listen to Marvin Bloom on Dan Savage’s Podcast!

» Check out New Left Media’s videos from Tea Party events.

» Read more about the Pew Research Center study we discussed.

Here are more lesbian movie recommendations, courtesy of The Lesbian Mafia:

» Watching You (Short Films)
» The 10 Rules (Short)
» If These Walls Could Talk 2
» D.E.B.S.
» High Art
» The L Word (First Season)
» Imagine Me and You
» Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love
» My Summer of Love
» Girl Play
» Loving Anabelle
» Lost and Delirious
»  We Have To Stop Now (Seasons 1 & 2)
» Girl/Girl Scene (Web Series)
» Bound
» But I’m a Cheerleader
» Itty Bitty Titty Committee

» Lovers and Friends (Urban Web Series)
» I Can’t Think Straight
» The Ultimate Lesbian Short Film Festival
» Lesbian Nation
» Lesbian Sex & Sexuality
» Fingersmith
» Desert Hearts
» Amy and Jaguar

Who are Christians?

This drives me crazy, because it makes it hard to blog about Christians. It’s a word that means so many different things to so many people, and for some people, it’s the only word that describes them. In reality, there is nothing I can say to generalize Christians as a group except that they believe Jesus Christ is their savior, and in some cases, even that might not be true.

This makes it very hard to write about Christianity. There are a lot of Christians who say a lot on behalf of Christianity (or some vague sense of Judeo-Christianity), such as Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Rick Warren, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson. Glenn Beck certainly made it quite clear that his 8/28 rally was all about God (and I doubt he meant Allah). I take responsibility from time to time to call these people out (I quickly realized it was foolish to try to cover them all), and then I have to say, “This is what Christian leaders are saying.” There are surely many Christians who do not agree, but these individuals and their groups still unabashedly claim to speak on behalf of (all) Christians.

Catholicism doesn’t have this problem. It’s a specifically defined institution with a very clear hierarchy. And whether all followers buy into it or not, the Catholic Church has very clear specifications for who IS a Catholic and who ISN’T. And given that the Catholic Church is pretty regularly deciding what’s best for other people in a very public and powerful way (or demonizing gays as the scapegoat for all their internal problems), it’s not surprising I end up writing more about them. It becomes all too easy to point at Catholics and say, “Look at what your Church is doing. You realize you’re still supporting that?”

The Mormon Church is similar, but doesn’t face the same challenges. When you’re no longer a Mormon, the good folks at LDS make it quite clear. They’ve been surprisingly quiet since the Prop 8 mess, so there hasn’t been as much to say about them lately. Even when they are in the news, there’s little finger-pointing to be done. Mormons who go against their Church are excommunicated pretty expressly; they very much take accountability for their institution’s actions in ways many Catholics blithely avoid.

But then there are those Christians. There are Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals, Quakers, and Mennonites, to name a few. I’m usually not too interested in what each of those groups do internally, because I see no point in trying to change the nature of individual religions. My goal is just to diminish the obscene privileges they have in society. Given that atheism defines the purview of this blog, I don’t think my time would be well spent arguing whether there is one better way to worship God or another. As a recent example: I feel bad that Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr was rebuked by the Presbyterian Church for presiding over same-sex marriages, but I’m not going to write about it extensively here. While I do care about the visibility of pro-gay messages as an LGBT activist, I’m more concerned here on the blog with the volume of religious voices, regardless of their content. I want to dismantle religious privilege and disempower faith. To chime in regarding an internal religious debate would suggest I think one religious explanation has more intellectual merit than another, when my actual point of view is that they all are equally lacking.

And so I’m left to write about Christians who are trying to control or manipulate the lives of people beyond their Church walls. So often, there is no other moniker to describe who these people are. They are Christians. This summer alone, I’ve written about local Christian organizations trying to evangelize through church camp and VBS (here and here), I wrote about the Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law (here), I’ve responded to WorldNetDaily’s Christian evangelism to its followers (here and here), I’ve responded to groups who privilege Christian beliefs about LGBT people over the science like AFTAH (here) and NARTH (here), I’ve responded to Christian counselors who think they know best (here, here, and by the way, the second girl also lost), and I also responded to a Christian evangelist who commented on the blog (here). I could have probably written even more, but Prop 8 and Netroots Nation swayed a lot of my focus toward LGBT activism. Still, I think I called out a lot of “Christians.”

If you, my reader, are a Christian, what should be your take-away? Many might say, “Well, I’m not that kind of Christian.” Great! I’m sure there are a ton of live-and-let-live Christians out there and even some who are very passionate allies of social justice. Unfortunately, there is a divide between the proactive and the reactive. In the United States, those who are proactive have a much louder megaphone, and arguably the most followers. These are the Christians who think it’s their mission to spread their faith and dictate that others abide by it. These are the individuals who claim that we are a “Christian Nation.” We’re talking about the AFA, FRC, WND, NOM, the Tea Party, and frankly the whole “religious right.” They define Christianity in this nation. They harness the privilege that religion has in our nation in ways no group ever has.

If you’re not that kind of Christian, I’m glad. But if you call yourself a Christian or you defend Christianity, know that those groups claim you and speak on your behalf. If you’re not happy with how they’ve defined what it means for you to be a Christian, you have a responsibility to stand up and correct them. As someone speaking out on the harm religion does to society, I cannot make exception for “all those other Christians” who don’t stand up for themselves when they are not pleased with what is said about Christianity. I’m not a Christian. It is that group of “Christians” who have to make an example of themselves.

This is one of many burdens Christians carry. Yes, you have an obligation to speak up for yourself and to repudiate and disavow those who try to define not just your faith but your place in society. I don’t care if you live in Washington, DC, or Coudersport, PA (I’m in probably a very small minority of Pennsylvanians who even know where Coudersport is); when people use your faith to foment their hate or discrimination, it is your responsibility to correct them, not mine. My job is simply to let you know that you’re still way behind.

On Facebook, I shared a blog post from indiemcemopants on Firedoglake called “The Closet is a Poison,” highlighting a passage I thought summed up the situation well:

In spite of the terror his philosophies inflicted on LGBT citizens and in spite of the decades long scare-fest of anti-gay hatred, gay-baiting and discriminatory laws foisted on us, Ken Mehlman wants us to know that his coming out experience has been just peachy. No apology for all the suicides his party’s stances inevitably brought on. No apology for hate crimes. No apology for the election campaign involving some of the worst anti-gay hatred anyone has ever witnessed. No apology for the terror LGB military people have had to endure. No apology for the forced rapes female soldiers went through to “prove” they are straight.

He just wants us to know that he’s been through a whole, whole lot and that he’s a very happy and well-adjusted person. Well Ken, fuck you.

An acquaintance of mine (who has been the covert long-term partner of a still-practicing gay Catholic military chaplain) implored me that this reaction was harsh, and had I no compassion for Mehlman’s struggle?

Do I have compassion for the struggle of coming out? Of course. That’s why I’ve committed my life to education and support for the LGBTQ community. But have I sympathy for Mehlman? Not really.

Why?, I was pushed. Is his struggle so different from anyone else’s? Why would you begrudge him? I could tell my acquaintance was speaking from a very personal place, given the decades of compassionate hiding he has done to make sure his partner is not outed to Church leadership. I explained to him that, much as for his partner who enables and promotes the Catholic Church’s messages of hate through his own self-hatred, I do have compassion, but it is not sympathy; it is pity.

I then asked my acquaintance whether he fully understood that Ken Mehlman was instrumental in coordinating Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign, in which same-sex marriage was used as a threatening wedge issue through a federal constitutional amendment as well as 11 state constitutional ballot initiatives. He did, but tried to repeat Mehlman’s own spin that he hadn’t figured out that part of his life by then.

So then I asked whether he was aware that Ken Melhman knew he was gay back in 2004? This was news to him. I said, oh yes! Mike Rogers started reporting it that year of that election, and Eric Resnick was writing about it the following year in 2005, and Bill Maher was even talking about it on CNN in 2006.

Shocked, my acquaintance demanded: Well why haven’t I heard about it until now? Because, I said, the mainstream media doesn’t want you to. They very much protect the closeted opponents of gay rights. That Bill Maher interview? After Maher talked about Mehlman on the live show, they censored it out of the rebroadcast. Here’s a clip from the movie Outrage showing just that (with much thanks to Mike Rogers for it!):

Let’s not forget that Fox News hasn’t mentioned Ken Mehlman’s Coming Out at all.

My acquaintance clung on: But that was then, now he is supporting marriage equality! Can’t you forgive him and move on?

I will forgive him when he apologizes and also stops funding anti-gay candidates. He hasn’t apologized for his past destruction, nor ceased all his present anti-gay support. If you read his interview with The Atlantic, he chooses his words very carefully. He does not use word “apologize” or “sorry.” He speaks of regret, but not about any of the harm he did. In fact, he continues to downplay the role same-sex marriage played in 2004′s elections. He speaks of regret very selfishly, that he is sad that he wasn’t further along in his journey:

“What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all.”

He said that he “really wished” he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, “so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]” and “reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans.”

That’s not an apology and it certainly doesn’t speak of responsibility or accountability. It’s political maneuvering. All of this, as ever before, is about what’s good for Ken Mehlman. He wants credit for coming out and supporting AFER. He wants pity for the tough position he was in. But in his mind—or at least in his words—he did no wrong. He’s a victim.

Well, it’s been said elsewhere, but it’s worth saying here again: that’s bullshit. And when I say that’s bullshit, I’m not coming from some super emotional, angry place. Frankly, I’m rather unfazed by this whole newsbreak because it wasn’t news to me. What does concern me is individuals like my acquaintance who had no clue what was going on while his life and his rights were being hit around like a fraying political shuttlecock.

There are a lot of LGBTQ people who have found “good enough.” They’ve got porridge they can eat and they’ve got just enough privilege that their lives aren’t too bad. So you know what they do? They turn a blind eye to LGBTQ issues. They aren’t in the closet; they’re in the dressing room. They’re going about their business like their fellow queers aren’t still fighting for their lives. Remember the lesbians whose kids were refused from the Catholic preschool? They got all upset that their super-comfortable we-have-everything-we-need, we-vote-and-that’s-as-political-as-we-need-to-get lives got upset, which was their own fault for subscribing to the Catholic Church to begin with.

What our LGBTQ community doesn’t know hurts us—is hurting us. I don’t know where my acquaintance now stands in regards to Ken Mehlman, but he definitely wasn’t in an informed place when he talked to me. We’ve conflated “pride” with “activism,” such that all the people who don’t want to be out and proud also choose to let others fight their fight for them. Some go so far as to say they don’t care; when faced with opportunities to learn what is happening in regards to LGBTQ issues, they actively reject that information. This privileged ignorance is one of the most destructive forces for our movement, because it gives everyone the impression that we’ve all found “good enough,” so there’s nothing left to work for.

We haven’t. Right now, in my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I can be denied housing, employment, and civil security for my relationship and family just because I’m gay. There is still bullying that goes uninterrupted. There are still hate crimes that go unprosecuted. In many ways, the LGBTQ community is just as unequal as it ever was, with the TQs even a few steps further back than where the LGBs have gotten.

But there is no outrage. Everything’s golden! Ken Mehlman’s helping us out now? Swell. I don’t know who he is, anyway. Let’s just keep everything peachy. After all, I don’t know any better anyway.

As Jon Stewart said at the end of his short segment last week:

It’s like that old poem: “First they came for the gays, but I didn’t know I was gay, so who gives a shit?”

We all have to care. We have to applaud the efforts of activists like Mike Rogers, even if they sometimes make us cringe. It’s our lives that continue to suffer from the spread of untruths and the manipulation of fear. Whether it’s quislings like Mehlman or just our most crass and vicious opponents, we have to know what’s going on, and we have to stand up for ourselves. If we don’t, we have only ourselves to blame.

By the way, Charlie Crist is up next. If you’re hearing it here first, you’re way behind.

But while post-9/11 bigotry against Islam was being discussed like it was news, some other studies showed that Manchurian Muslims aren’t the only nonsense Americans buy into.

A Gallup poll found that about 75% of Americans believe in at least one form of paranormal activity—some many more. Take a look:

I remember a point in my life where I might have believed in one, if not more, of these. For example, I am a perfect picture of a Virgo (what are my readers getting me for my birthday??), and I remember one day when I read my horoscope at the end of the day and it described the day I had had in ridiculous detail. I was convinced.

Of course, I was wrong. Astrology is BS. Just ask yourself this question: who writes your horoscope and how?

It’s disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising, that so many people are so easily duped. I wonder what the correlation would be if the same sample were asked if they believed being gay was a choice or that children of same-sex couples are not as well-adjusted as those of opposite-sex couples.

Unfortunately, this study showed no connection between level of education and level of gullibility. But another study did on one compelling point.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study about Americans’ perceptions of the future. One of the items was whether they believed Jesus Christ would return by 2050. One of the biggest factors that affected how people responded was the level of education they had achieved.

Those with college educations were much less likely to believe Jesus would be returning. Even those with only some college responded differently than those with only a high school education.

This, I think, bodes well for higher education. It’s one little observation about one little study, but I still think it’s one to be proud of.

A college education, in addition to preparing folks for their chosen profession, should promote critical thinking skills. While some might be saddened to see a loss of faith, I am proud to see an increase in rational thinking.

The Pew Study also found that Republicans were more likely to have a negative view about the future of education and were less likely to believe in ongoing global warming. Maybe if they cared a little bit more about supporting the education we already have, they would better understand concepts that are not really up for debate in the world of science.

I would love to see critical thinking skills and scientific literacy taking a higher priority in education, but in the meantime, I’m at least optimistic to see some great things are happening. It’s sad that our country is still so influenced by paranoia, but continuing to have the conversations is how we move forward.

Take a look through the studies to see some other interesting results.

This week, a group called Catholics for Equality officially launched.

Catholics for Equality empowers pro-equality Catholics to put our faith into ethical and effective political action on behalf of the LGBT community and their families.

Something about “pro-equality Catholic” just doesn’t sit right with me. There’s very little in Catholicism that in any way resembles “equality” and Catholicism has never been known for being pro-anything. Let’s hear a little bit more from their website:

Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, grounded in the Gospel message of Love, American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for LGBT people of any religious group in the U.S.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HE HE HE HE HE HE HE!! WHOO! I’m rolling around on the floor. Seriously ROTFLMFAO!!! That’s the best joke I’ve heard all day. You can’t be serious, right? I mean, the Catholics come close, but it’s definitely the Mormons who are the strongest supporters of LGBT equality, by far. Oh, that’s rich, or it would be if it weren’t so offensive to all the religious groups who do actually support LGBT equality.

Now, mocking aside, what they’re talking about is that there is a rift between congregants and the leadership. Catholics for Equality is a group designed to oppose the bishops. The Catholic Church isn’t exactly democratic or egalitarian in any conceivable way, so if congregants don’t want to accept what the leadership is spoon-feeding, they have to form a separate group to represent their point of view, and this is such a group.

The question here is: what does it mean to be “Catholic?” Is it anyone who maintains belief in the holy trinity? Is it anybody who just chooses it as a cultural identifier regardless of belief? There are a lot of folks in these categories who can be heard to say, “Well, I was raised Catholic.” Is it anyone who is technically still on the books as Catholic? If that’s the case, then I’m Catholic too.

When I think of people who openly identify as Catholic, I think of people who are still actively participating in the Catholic Church. This seems a fitting assumption for Catholics for Equality; they want to mobilize Catholic voters, influence legislation, and even get some pro-equality Catholics into office. I don’t think a lapsed Catholic (and flagrant atheist) like me would count as a victory for them.

Let’s grant the premise that there is a difference between Catholics and the Catholic Church. I despise the Catholic Church, and without writing an extensive rant, I think it’s safe to say that centuries of oppression of women and children, hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of anti-gay ballot measures, and the withholding of safe-sex education that would slow the spread of HIV in Africa are plenty of leg to stand on. (The fact that I was involuntarily assumed into Catholic membership is just icing on the cake for my unabashed bias.) I don’t despise Catholics, but if someone is going to identify as a Catholic for Equality, that person must convince me that they are actively working against all the injustice the Catholic Church stands for. And it does; platitudes about social justice teachings in Catholicism do nothing to excuse the behemoth of bigotry that was and is the institution of the Catholic Church.

So if there are several key points in Catholic dogma you don’t agree with, what does it say if you still identify as Catholic? That sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. I would ask such a person, “Why do you still identify as Catholic?” Sure, it could be for reasons I mentioned above, like it’s the term that still best resonates with a person’s personal religious belief or it’s an ethnocultural marker (like Irish Catholic or Italian Catholic). But if you’re actively participating in the Catholic Church or any of its ministries, that strikes me as a huge conflict.

The bottom line, I think, is whether or not a person contributes any money to the Catholic Church. I can get past a person identifying with the word “Catholic” and I can even keep my cool with people enjoying Mass. I think it’s boring as hell (and I’m still going to challenge you on your religious beliefs), but I can at least appreciate how someone might like the pageantry and ritual. However, if you allow a single penny from your pocket to make it into that offering basket or tithing envelope, we have a problem.

Giving the Church money is giving the Church your blessing. It’s enabling the Church to continue doing what the Church does. It’s an investment. It’s an assumption of accountability for the Church’s actions. And honestly, if you give to the Church and then tell me you support LGBT equality, I will probably just laugh, because knowingly or unknowingly, you are participating in hypocrisy.

That’s why I really struggle with Catholics for Equality. I want to support them; I really do. I am sure that they will educate some Catholics and make some positive change. I also truly appreciate the way they stand for separation of church (Church) and state. But ultimately, it’s just political masturbation. More Catholic influence on our culture is not going to do anything to help me in my life as a gay man. I don’t want more Catholics in power. As it is, I have to worry that the Supreme Court won’t uphold my right to equal protection specifically because it’s got so many Catholics on it. If you’re supporting the Church and working against the Church at the same time, are you actually making any progress?

The whole reason I started blogging is because I saw beliefs to be the problem. The intellectual fallacies I could understand as a freethinker were the same ones I saw oppressing me as a gay man. We wouldn’t have a problem with homophobia and transphobia (or heck, even patriarchy) if religious organizations did not continually push negative beliefs that ignore our modern-day understandings of sex, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Why should we applaud members of an organization hell-bent on resisting social justice for trying to support social justice without disavowing the very group they’re working against?

Were this group Ex-Catholics for Equality or even Lapsed Catholics for Equality, I’d applaud them for organizing. But Catholics for Equality? That sounds about as absurd as Quakers for War, Jehovah’s Witnesses for Blood Transfusions, or Muslims for Female Immodesty. If you want to support equality, take responsibility for resisting it in the first place.

Now, I could do the same thing. I could make shit up about what the religious right is going to do to your secular-minded gay-friendly progressive kids to scare you! But I don’t have to make anything up. The religious right sends it right to my email!

Get ready for WorldNetDaily back to school essentials! (Nope, not making any of this up.)

I’m sure the photographer thought, “Oh, we only need one black kid to look diverse; it doesn’t matter how white the rest of them are. Besides, the flag is a great excuse to keep the rest of the kids from making eye contact with him. Also, we’ll put him in yellow next to the girl grabbing her boob in green to help our readers remember which Metro lines to avoid when they come to DC. Ooh, and we can’t let those colors be in order!”

Yeah, that was incredibly snarky, but that kind of snark is the only that’s going to get us through the rest of this WND promo email. I’m going to go ahead and leave in the links, but just be wary of what you’ll find on WorldNetDaily… they’re a bit wacko.

It’s back-to-school time, whether your children go to public or private schools or you’re their teacher at home.

Either way, your kids need the essentials of a classical education – one they surely won’t get in a traditional school.

You know this already isn’t boding well. The “back to school” catalog isn’t notebooks and pencils for when they get to class. It’s all propaganda that students won’t get in school.

The WND Superstore has many of the essential resources you and your kids need.

It starts with the Bible – and there’s a great selection of low-cost choices.

Then there are great Bible study resources.

See, there are all these different versions of the Bible, and then a whole bunch of different ways to interpret each of the versions. (It’s not unlike the recent Indexed comic…) How do you know which is right for you? Well, with all the audio and video versions available, you’ll never have to actually parent or teach your kid a thing! Leave it all to the theological experts. Just point at whichever one you’ve been scared into thinking is most important and it’s yours!

Here’s something your kids won’t get for sure in a traditional school – “Nothing From Everything: The Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution” by Ray Comfort. You don’t want your kids believing they are the products of random chance and millions of years of evolution.

*Takes long deep breath.* Yes. WND wants your kids reading Ray Comfort. And they’re telling you want you want and don’t want. Random chance? Evolution? Malarkey! This isn’t stuff to help kids learn better at school; it’s stuff to help them unlearn when they get home.

The Constitution of the United States! Every child, no matter what age, should be grounded in the Constitution. Make sure your child has a pocket copy for only 99 cents.

I’m actually okay with that. And it doesn’t even seem to have one of those Ray Comfort “forwards of undoing,” if you will. It’s just the Constitution. I got my pocket constitution for free from the ACLU. (They actually know how to defend it.)

Here are some products that make politically incorrect learning fun:

• “Help! Mom! Hollywood’s in My Hamper”
• “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed”
• “Help! Mom! The 9^th Circuit Nabbed the Nativity”

Wow. These books are ridiculous. Here’s a description of the “…Under My Bed” which was the first in the series.

This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.

The second one (“…in My Hamper”) I might have a bit of tolerance for, because I’m not thrilled about the worship of celebrities either, but it has Mike Huckabee’s endorsement, which is a big red flag. The last one is about a school nativity play that gets ruined because of liberals obsessed with “diversity, global warming and stinky French cheese.” Maybe they could whip out that Constitution and read the 1st Amendment… but I’m sure that’s not the moral of the story.

Seriously, I’d be scared about my kids being read these books. Luckily, I don’t have to worry about that, for a number of obvious reasons.

Would you like to provide some historical perspective on the 20^thcentury and the battle for freedom? There’s no better way than the remarkable documentary, “In the Face of Evil.” Joseph Farah calls it one of the most important films ever made.

This film will make sure your kids are worshiping Reagan at an early age. I’m sure the portraits on the wall in every room are good clues, but the film will help seal the deal.

As for classic, don’t forget C.S. Lewis’ “Letters to Children” and “Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan.

Balance out Lewis’ apologetics for children with a century-old tome with even more religious dogma. Interestingly enough, “Pilgrim’s Progress” is listed under Fiction on the site.

Your children should be scared, very scared. The radical extremists want to circumvent science and civics to recruit their own army of brainwashed children.

Gosh, it sounds legitimately scary when it reflects reality and isn’t just a scare tactic meant to deceive.

Zack and Peterson are back together this week! And while Peterson is interested in conducting a sensible interview with our guest, Joe Gee, about being one of the earliest queer podcasters, Joe and Zack are more interested in spending the show busting on Peterson. Still, we manage to discuss Joe’s experiences podcasting, we “bump” a whole bunch of other shows, and Joe also talks about walking away from Quakerism and becoming a non-believer and humanist. Enjoy this raucous half-hour with your favorite queer podcasters back in action with puns and euphemisms galore!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Teresa Ortega’s blog – In Sequence

» Yeast Radio featuring Madge Weinstein

» Queer Podder (now qpodder)

» The Progrum with Wanda Wisdom

» Ragan Fox’s Podcast (Fox and the City) and Blog (America’s Next Top Bottom)

» The Flatus Show with Kentie

» Hot Fossils and Rebel Matters with Ninja

» Zillafag

» Watch the Holy Ghost Enema video on YouTube!!

» Adam Curry (Podshow, by the way, is now Mevio)

» Music Alley (formerly PodSafe)

» The Dark Forest (not Deep Forest) with Ranger John

» The Lesbian Mafia

» Sisters Talk

» Feast of Fun

» Same Sex Sunday

I think there is something so important about celebrating our out LGBT artists. There are a lot of artists out there who can do things for our community, but artists from our community can really project our experiences with profound power. Tom is a great example of that, particularly in the way he’s so open and casual about his relationship with his amazing fiancé, Michael, who was also at the show last night, and for whom many of Tom’s songs are unabashedly written. Here’s a video Tom recorded of a song he’d just written about watching Michael snore, which he recorded while Michael was snoring. It’s incredibly sweet:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8opSPEocXk

I remember when I first discovered an out gay artist. It was Levi Kreis, and his album One of the Ones was this lovely collection of songs about love and relationships, and even if there wasn’t a single gendered word in the song, you knew they were about another man. There is something so important about hearing songs that are about our own experiences. I think so many in our community are still deprived of that opportunity: to see a fellow queer person communicate through music testimonies of our own lives.

While the music of the civil rights movement was very spiritual and inspiring, it seems music in the LGBT movement has been more about liberation. More than anything, ours has been a struggle against repression, a war against the closet and against those who would keep us there. When we celebrate ourselves, we celebrate our freedom and those chance opportunities to let loose. It’s unsurprising that dance and techno music has largely defined that, because that is exactly what dance music communicates: it makes you want to dance. It’s light and yet fierce at the same time; it’s incredibly freeing.

Unfortunately, many of the musicians we celebrate (Cher, Robyn, September, Ke$ha, Miley, etc.) have been heterosexuals, and while dance music may energize us, it lacks a real human connection to the joys and challenges of our lives as LGBT people. That’s why music like Tom’s is so important; it’s music for the 363 days we’re not at Pride. I wonder how many people re-closet themselves after they leave Pride and just ignore the reality of their own identity because it’s easier for them to do so. Truly queer music might be challenging to some in that it helps break down self-constructed closet walls, but the consequence is, I think, a deep sense of validation and connection. We are real people with real relationships and real emotions and there needs to be a soundtrack for our lives too.

I hope you, my reader, will take some time to find an artist who really speaks to your experience. Don’t settle for the spoon-fed mainstream pop music; it alone will not speak to the life you lead. Find the artists who do, and you will be amazed at how they impact and empower you.

Thanks for a great show Tom! If there are other openly queer artists out there who I can help connect with a queer audience, please let me hear from you! I like new friends and I like supporting queer musicians (and any other kind of visual/theatrical/etc. artists too)!

I’ll leave you with a song Tom Goss co-wrote with Matt Alber (who I featured here on Valentine’s Day ’10) about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell called “Who We Are.” Enjoy!

Tom Goss and Matt Alber -- Who We Are

Because we understand the impact of leaving Target and Best Buy on the various products associated with the Buyer’s Guide, both companies will soon be removed from it.

HRC will not encourage people to shop at either store and believes that consumers should make their own decisions after careful consideration of all of the information available to them.

No word on whether their CEI ratings will be docked any points as their current criteria allows. HRC also stops short of supporting a boycott of the stores, though given HRC's weak political tameness, one wonders whether they would ever support any kind of community activist tactic like a boycott.]

Okay, folks, let’s review, and I’m going make this REALLY basic for ya’ll:

» The Human Rights Campaign maintains a Corporate Equality Index (CEI), updated annually, that evaluates the employment practices of over 300 U.S. businesses in regards to LGBT issues. The criteria includes: non-discrimination policies, diversity trainings, trans-inclusive benefits, partner benefits, LGBT working groups and diversity councils, respectful advertising and marketing, and “responsible behavior toward the LGBT community” (for which 15 points are deducted if the company does something “to undermine LGBT equality”).

» Data from the CEI is used to inform the HRC Employer Search and the Buying for Equality guide released every November, which has an unabashed goal of harnessing the LGBT community’s buying power (estimated at $709 billion in 2009) toward supporting pro-equality companies during the holiday shopping season.

» The Target company has maintained a CEI rating of 100, which qualifies it for HRC’s list of “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.”

» Empowered by its new corporate freedom thanks to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision earlier this year, Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward, an organization in Minnesota supporting a “vehemently anti-gay candidate” (Joe Solmonese’s words) for governor.

» HRC stepped in and demanded that Target similarly give $150,000 to pro-gay candidates to offset the damage they’d done.

» After a couple days of talks, Target said, “No.”

» HRC committed to giving $150,000 of its own money to offset the costs.

First of all, how great is it that HRC is sitting on that kind of money that they can just dump it out without flinching? Man, the LGBT movement is just rolling in it!

Anyways, so let’s say you have a friend that you really like. One day, your friend beats the shit out of you. You tell your friend to stop beating the shit out you. Your friend says, “No.” What do you do?

I don’t know about ya’ll, but having been through middle school (as a nerd), I stop calling such a friend “a friend.” In fact, I might concoct a plan to take that jackass down a few pegs.

So what is HRC doing to punish Target?

Nothing. What is Target’s rating on CEI? 100. As groups like MoveOn are calling for boycotts (you know, to harness that spending power of the LGBT community and its allies), HRC has taken no position on boycotts. In other words, if HRC was saying a month ago that we should shop at Target, it isn’t saying it any less today.

This isn’t speculation. This is according to Fred Sainz of HRC on Michelangelo Signorile’s Radio Show yesterday.

Sainz said that it is hard to change the CEI criteria and that HRC is trying to “grapple” with the Citizens United changes.

Uh-huh. And what about those 15 points you can dock when a company isn’t being a “good corporate citizen”? It’s already built into the criteria. But guess who still has a 100 on the CEI?

Someone at HRC needs to take some Psych and Research Methods classes. You don’t continue to cheer for a friend once the friend is a bully. There’s this thing called conditioning and this other thing called codependency, and you don’t want to… oh forget it. Also, if the test you apply produces results that aren’t valid then… ugh, why am I wasting my time talking about education?

The problem here is that this is not about equality, it’s all about money. Michelangelo made this point pretty compellingly:

Let me just add that the bigger problem here is HRC offering a “buyer’s guide” at all. You’re not an ad agency for corporations; you’re a civil rights group. I know other groups do it, but it will always run into trouble. If you’re going to do it you need to be able to quickly fix it, such as in a situation like this.

It’s fine and good to list companies based on workplace practices and they should be letting LGBT people know what are the best companies to work for. But telling people to spend their money at these companies — and then HRC taking donations from these companies, as they have done with Target — puts your group in a bad position. It appears as if the reason for the buyer’s guide is to get donations from the companies in return for sending LGBT consumers to them. And the reason HRC is now “grappling” and trying to figure out what to do is because they’re worried about other companies in their index, some of which no doubt also give to antigay causes or candidates. If they remove Target they’ll have to remove others. They shouldn’t have been in this position — or should be able to react quickly and change the buyer’s guide immediately when a problem arises.

HRC only wants to guide our community’s buying power when they can benefit. HRC only wants to hold companies accountable if they have nothing to lose.

What does HRC stand for?

If the best they can offer is some heated rhetoric, they stand for nothing. This sounds so familiar… who else is really good with words but never expends any capital on behalf of our community…?

Oh right, the President. And guess who’s been #1 at Obama’s table on behalf of LGBT issues… oh, that’s right: HRC!

It seems like HRC really wants to look like it’s doing things for our community without actually accomplishing anything. While the President’s strategy is surely motivated by politics, HRC’s is motivated by money. And while the President’s inaction is bad for our community, HRC’s continued siphoning of our community’s money seems downright despicable.

What does HRC stand for? Today… not my rights.

And no, I’m pretty sure this is not a Poe. [Hmm... it really has to be. But it's a good Poe, because it surely has folks on both sides fooled. If people believe it is real, does that make it real?]

I don’t know that I’m the most stereotypical gay. The closet is a figment of my imagination at this point, so I wouldn’t be fooling anybody, but my behaviors don’t necessarily fit. Let’s take a look at how Christwire wants women to identify gay men and see how I fit. (Forewarning: All gay men are obsessed with sex, drugs, and their own bodies.)

By the way, the picture is your first clue: if he’s skinny (skinnier than you), hairless, and has messy Elijah Wood hair, you might be in a really stereotyping photoshoot.

1) Secretive late night use of cellphones and computers

Hmm… I suppose I’m not really secretive about my late night computer use. It’s about 9:30 PM right now as I’m working on this post, which will be visible to the world wide web, so I guess that’s not very secretive.  The author (a man) tells women that “for the sake of trust, a married couple should share everything, including phone logs, email accounts, chat friends and website histories.” Why do I have a hunch a man could easily set up this arrangement specifically to make it easier to hide what he was doing? Hello, Google Chrome Incognito.

2) Looks at other men in a flirtatious way

Alright, guilty as charged. In fact, I struggle with being subtle with my flirtation. I admitted on this week’s Queer and Queerer that I openly objectify my attractive friends. Sorry unattractive friends; when it comes to ogling, I’m as superficial as the next guy. I particularly love my straight male friends who openly flirt back; now that is trust and security in masculinity. Kudos, boys, for getting over yourselves.

3) Feigning attention in church and prayer groups

Not me. While churches might be the best place to pick up dudes, this atheist doesn’t need any closet cases in his life. Sorry, boys, but you won’t have me to prey pray on.

4) Overly fastidious about his appearance and the home

Well, I shower. I don’t have the “certain amount of grit” that “natural men” who sweat and smell have, but I don’t tweeze or get picky about my shampoo. Heck, I’m so old-fashioned I still use a wash cloth and bar soap. That’s gotta give me some straight points. Remind me what this has to do with whether or not I like cock? (Sorry potential employers who are reading this; I’m just being derisive for humorous effect. I hope you’re laughing!)

5) Gym membership but no interest in sports

Nope. Well, not really. I’m not interested in sports, but I don’t have a gym membership either. Just think how much I’ll be able to enjoy life without all the time wasted on my body for the sake of appealing to other guys who are so superficial that not having a six-pack is a deal-breaker. I can be healthy without spending every day trying to look like a Chippendale. Please. (Also, not a big fan of bathroom sex here. Hey! That’s what the article alleges!)

6) Clothes that are too tight and too “trendy”

I do think I look better it fitted clothes, but I’m hardly trendy. My wardrobe largely comes from Kohl’s, Old Navy, and Aeropostale. To all the gay men out there who just fainted, I do at least own one item of clothing from A&F (a super comfy cashmere scarf!). I certainly don’t own skinny jeans, and I don’t have to look at my butt in the mirror to know it looks good, thank you very much.

7) Strange sexual demands

So get this, heteros. If you want butt-sex from your lady, or you want her to tie you up and use you, that means you’re probably gay. You’re not allowed to be adventurous (or even curious) without having “deep emotional abnormalities.” Fetishes are fun. I don’t know who this Stephenson Billings guy is who wrote this POS article, but I’m worried about him. TALK ABOUT REPRESSION. (I’d rather talk about kink!)

8) More interested in the men than the women in pornographic films

There are porn films with women in them? Gross.

(I love you ladies, but… you know.)

9) Travels frequently to big cities or Asia

It’s true that gay culture only exists in Asia. Wait, what? I mean, it’s true that gay culture only exists in big cities. It’s annoying. It drives me crazy that central PA doesn’t have any bathhouses. I mean, where’s a guy supposed to go for lots of random anonymous sex in middle America? (Just kidding, folks, I don’t even know where to go with this one… Thailand?)

10) Too many friendly young male friends

Long hugs with young guys… nice. Incidentally, it was a straight man who bought me that scarf I referenced earlier. He was a good guy. And roommate. I miss him.

He was straight; I promise.

I guess I do have lots of young guy friends, but I’m a young guy, so, I guess, that’s just the way it goes.

11) Sassy, sarcastic and ironic around his friends

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

12) Love of pop culture

Meh. Apparently, “genuine heterosexual men” avoid gossip websites, Glee, and The Golden Girls. I don’t read gossip sites at all, and I’m not overly thrilled with The Golden Girls (at least not like my gay breathren), but I do love Glee. I’m going to say that this one does not adequately apply to me. Do I care that Chelsea Handler is going to host the MTV Video Music Awards? Who?

13) Extroverted about his bare chest in public

Uhhhhh… nope. No shirtlesness, no speedo at the beach.

14) Sudden heavy drinking

I don’t need to hide my distress. No drinking binges, no smoking, no crying. Sorry, Christwire.

15) Ladies, have you dated men in the past who turned out to be gay?

I did date a few girls in high school. Two of them are currently married. I should go ask them…

So how did I score? Only like… five? But you know what? I am gay.

Hey men, don’t beat yourself up. You don’t have to change who you are to be gay. Just come out and be yourself and be happy. Don’t ruin these poor women’s lives. You don’t need them worrying that they’re going to Hell because they think they’ve been infected with teh gay.

I guess I get an extra point for saying “teh.”

Both the Pennsylvania Independent and Philadelphia Gay News have published stories about the goings-down last Friday. (Full disclosure: both stories quote me.) The Independent has some pictures as well.

Also, here are two videos featuring some of the folks there to support NOM. I have a cameo in the first one around the 0:31 mark as I try to cross the street! I wish some heterosexuals would come out as sodomites; given that I am technically not a sodomite (so far in my life), I’m tired of getting roped in as a sinner just because I’m gay. (I need to get back to blogging about atheism; my sense of humor is taking a weird turn.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauRek-Du20

When we saw these guys’ approach with their red capes, my mom asked me who they are. I calmly replied “toreadors.” It was unfortunate for them that their chosen color matched ours. Check out the brilliant young Catholic mind hard at work:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-3kZGceHhc

Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is “99  percent supportive of your issues.”

John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding responded, “Tough” and “Good,” appropriately so. I very much appreciated this retort from Pam:

I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold – that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing “study”; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you’re 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.

Mediaite chimed in on the story, but posed the question of whether the White House should care about bloggers’ umbrage:

While bloggers may have an outsized-role with other activist groups that the White House wants support from, there may be little downside in questioning the role of activists/bloggers and touting the administration’s perceived successes outside of the LGBT blogosphere’s echo chamber-like voice.

This seems a bit uppity for Mediate, given that Mediate is, itself, a blog, and one that’s actually geared more toward the media industry. It should not be surprising that LGBT blogs have similar messages; they’re similar blogs. One thing I’ve noticed though is that everyone in the LGBT blogosphere does have a different take on things. In fact, I think we do a good job (myself included, I hope) of offering different perspective and coverage on different issues, even if we sometimes arrive at the same conclusions. Yes, I quoted other blogs (that’s what we do as good bloggers), but now I will add my own thoughts. We’re part of a movement, we have to have some cohesion, and the fact that we do is not cause to dismiss us as an echo chamber that doesn’t ever represent the sentiment of the greater community. To assume that the community has a singular opinion on anything is foolishness anyway.

Quite to the contrary, something‘s working if we have the White House’s attention.

So let’s stop for a second and consider: what can we actually learn about how the White House perceives us from Bond’s comment?

I think any or all of the following could be true based on what he said (even those that contradict each other).

» The White House sees the LGBT blogosphere as a threat to its messaging.

Pam suggested as much by referring to “THE LIST” that is surely kept somewhere. Which blogs does the White House read? They must read enough to be frustrated by what they see.

» The White House appreciates that a significant number of LGBT people read LGBT blogs.

Why would the White House be frustrated that blogs are criticizing the administration if people aren’t reading and spreading that criticism? They wouldn’t.

» The White House cares more about talking points and PR than reality or equality.

Oops! This is me piling on criticism of the White House. Don’t be surprised. In many regards, this administration hasn’t been much different than administrations in the past. It’s the same bone-throwing philosophy we’re used to (gnaw on that for a while). Unfortunately, the blogosphere is no longer interested in bones, and arguably has been an effective force in dismissing the bones members of the LGBT community might otherwise be content to chew on. Job benefits for unmarried partners of federal benefits? A memo against hospital visitation discrimination? Good, but not good enough. Like Pam said, the President asked us to hold him accountable, so the President should be frustrated if we are too.

» The White House does not think or care that a significant number of LGBT people read LGBT blogs.

This would be an easy thing for the White House to believe, especially since the LGBT group with the most access is the Human Rights Campaign. This is a real conflict within the community, as many feel HRC speaks for them and many don’t, but HRC is unabashed in proclaiming that they are the biggest LGBT org (by way of most supporters) and thus do speak for the community. I would argue that the bloggers who regularly criticize both HRC and the Obama administration have speak as much on behalf of the LGBT community as HRC claims too, but the influence HRC has might suggest otherwise to the White House.

» The White House does not really care what the blogs have to say.

If they did, we wouldn’t have been repeating ourselves for the past 18 months. Obama would have spoken to LGBT press outlets. They’d answer our questions directly. We wouldn’t have bad “compromises” about the fate of our equality. They would try to engage us instead of ignore us. Even if we frustrate them at times, we can’t mean all that much to them if they’ve never bothered with us.

» The White House does not care about having the LGBT blogosphere’s support.

This seems to be the most important conclusion. We may be annoying, we may get in the way of their messaging and their tactics, but they don’t see us as vital. Pam’s description of us as “mere gnats on the political landscape” seems apropos, in that it’s how the White House wants to see us. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any political equivalent for citronella oil. They will continue to just work around us. They’re frustrated, but not enough to do anything about it.

The bottom line is this: the administration wants control. They want to determine their LGBT strategy. They want to act like they know what’s best for us. They want to reserve their political capital. It’s all a power thing. If there’s one thing to be learned from Brian Bond’s comment, it’s that we do have an influence. We don’t go unnoticed.

We just have to up our game.

I mean that. You know, sometimes people write long treatises disagreeing with you, and those can be frustrating, but hatemail and disparaging comments are just funny.

The comment came from Aaron on my post about the book Negrophilia. As you recall, this was a book that was heralded by WingNutDaily because a black man was promoting white privilege. It was absurd and needed called out.

Before we get to Aaron’s comment (which has little to do with Negrophilia), you should learn a little about him. I was able to find him on Facebook because he provides his email, and while I will protect his information, I will point out that according to his profile pic (the only thing I can see), he identifies with a group called the Unorganized Militia: Propaganda Corps. From what I can gather, this seems to be a pro-2nd amendment (pro-self-defense, pro-gun rights, “pro-America”) group who are apparently anti-racist. This helps illuminate some of the contradictions and misperceptions in Aaron’s comment, but does not account for the inconsistencies in his approach to social justice.

At any rate, let’s see what Aaron had to say.

Come on people! You can’t take Zack Ford serious.

Well, he’s not even ten words in and already has a grammatical error, so the irony abounds.

The guy has a “Donate to queer or queerer” banner up and he looks like the poster boy for arrested development; and that is just what has been purposefully placed to draw the visual attention first.

Technically, I have a “Donate” button for people who want to make a Paypal donation for the work I do here on the blog and a “Queer and Queerer” button for people who want to listen to my delightful podcast with Peterson Toscano. If you expect me to split the money you donate with Peterson, you better specify that when you make the donation!

Now, I’m not sure who the “poster boy” for Arrested Development would be, but if it’s Jason Bateman or Michael Cera, I will take that as a HUGE compliment. It could be that Aaron meant actual arrested development, as in the antiquated term for severe mental impairment. Even if that’s the case, I still take the notion that I’m cute enough to be a poster boy as quite the compliment.

At closer inspection he has put “ZackFord Blogs | Behold the musings of Zack Ford, a politically-minded white, gay, male, nondisabled, middle-class, atheist educator with a passion for social justice.” at the very top of the page. The guy’s schtick is to be outrageous, like a clown. So, how serious should he be considered?

Well, I do try to be funny, although it’s a dry, sarcastic funny that doesn’t always register. I think the people who are the most funny are often the ones to be taken the most seriously. I trust what I get from Jon Stewart a whole lot more than most of those “serious” journalists on the other cable news networks.

In all actuality, if one considers just how many “Hal Turners” there are being Federally funded by traitors matching his individual definition within the Criminal Government, I’d say not much. His “job” is to be an underminer of ethics and morality. He is most likely funded some how by the cowards within the NSA and FBI to perpetuate their treasonous actions against the People of America and Humanity in General by espousing thier nonsensical and absurdist rantings which they hope will distract people lone enough while they continue to sell everyone out to global corporate bankers.

Now, given that he just compared me to a white nationalist/supremacist, I wonder if he didn’t quite read what I’d written. My point was to challenge white privilege, not reinforce it. For what I know of him, I am no more a fan of Hal Turner than Aaron seems to be.

I would not consider this blog my job. It certainly doesn’t pay like one. The three cents I make each day aren’t really my motivation for writing. I also really struggle with conspiracy theories, because they tend to be so rooted in general paranoia, so Aaron’s lost me there.

I am with Aaron on despising global corporate bankers, though. My hope is to raise awareness—to educate—not to distract with nonsense. I wrote something similar myself earlier this summer.

So, don’t take this guy too serious.

His grammar might be wrong, but at least he’s consistent.

He’s just a morally bankrupt peice of subhuman scum who will always ever contend points with absurdities in hopes to make himself appear supperior while building philosphical foundations made up mud and shit.

The angrier people are when they write, the worse their spelling gets. That’s my hunch, at least for Aaron’s sake.

So, I’m morally bankrupt. This is because I challenge racism? Or religious privilege? Or just plain bad ideas?

Subhuman scum. I’m glad to know that I’m both dirty and do not even qualify as a person.

My points are absurd… or he just doesn’t get them.

I have philosophical foundations made up of mud and shit. From what I learned about some Native American tribes in Elementary School, structures made of mud were sturdy and well insulated. I didn’t even realize I talked all that much about philosophical foundations. I just try to be rational, is all.

The latter of which the guy has a deranged fascination for, his being admittingly gay. He is either a packer or receiver of it. Is it any wonder that he espouses it also?

Somehow the fact that I’m gay is connected to my fascination with muddy/shitty philosophical foundations? I’m not sure I even understand that. I mean, I’m assuming Aaron’s got some moral conflicts with homosexuality that he’s implying here. It’s interesting that he struggles against racism and yet perpetuates homophobia. Bummer.

Ah! No, I get it now. I have a fascination with shit. Because I’m a fudge-packer or something. I get it now.

Well, actually, that is wrong. The world doesn’t need to know the details of my sex life, but I’ll share this much: I’m neither a packer nor a receiver. Not all gay men like anal sex; I’ve never had it. So there. Stereotype busted!

I wish Aaron had made one relevant point. Then I wouldn’t have to make fun of his comment in a full post. But, well, there you have it.

First, here’s a quick reminder of the vocab, because I know it can get confusing. The plaintiffs are the good guys (represented by Olson and Boies), the defendants are the actual government officials, and the proponents are the Protect Marriage folks who stepped in as defendant-intervenors.

» When Judge Walker first overturned Prop 8 two weeks ago, he implemented a temporary stay for his own ruling for the sole purpose of giving the defendants/proponents a window to demonstrate why the decision should be stayed until after appeal. This was a tough case to make since he said in the decision that same-sex marriage in no way harmed anybody or any marriages.

» We learned that Judge Walker would make his decision on this matter last Thursday (August 12). We waited with baited breath through a three-hour window in which we thought we would hear. Couples were waiting in line to marry and extra city officials had been deputized to help perform the marriages. Finally, sometime in the fourth hour we learned that he would be lifting the stay, but it would still be in effect until this Wednesday (tomorrow, August 18).

Many were underwhelmed by this response. Given that the original decision had been so unabashed in outlining the harm to gays and lesbians by Proposition 8, this seemed an unnecessary extension of that harm. Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry called it Justice Delayed. The extension of the stay created room for the Appeals Court to offer their own stay without there being a window of legal same-sex marriage.

» Yesterday, the appeals court did issue their stay until that round of the trial is over. This is disappointing news for most. The court did expedite the case, but that won’t necessarily appease many, as the trial date is in December, and a decision won’t come until potentially months afterward.

» There is still the question of standing, whether the proponents have the right to appeal at all since they are not the defendants. A decision in that matter could end everything else. If that were to happen, Judge Walker’s ruling would apply, but to California only. Still, it would be an important precedent for future trials in other parts of the country.

That’s where we stand now. Same-sex couples still cannot marry in California. A final decision in that matter is still at least half a year away, if that. It’s odd to recognize that we had this huge victory two weeks ago and yet we don’t have much to show for it.

In the meantime, we can still take a whack at Protect Marriage and their ugly gloating over basic procedure that is not really a victory for them at all.

Here was Charles Cooper’s reaction last Thursday when Judge Walker (kind of) lifted the stay:

We are gratified that Judge Walker has continued until August 18^th the temporary stay of his decision.  We will promptly seek from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a stay pending the final resolution of the case. On appeal, we look forward with confidence to a decision vindicating the democratic process and the basic constitutional authority of the 7 million Californians who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny.

Again, this completely ignores the fact that it is Judge Walker’s job to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land. Andy Pugno then, of course, gloated yesterday when they got a stay:

This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Prop 8 proponents to stay U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, thereby upholding the vote of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. The arguments will occur in San Francisco the week of December 6, 2010.

“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.

Always eager to play the victim! Enjoining Judge Walker’s decision would have validated my confidence in the judiciary to be a balanced check, but that’s just me.

Pugno went further in an email to Prop 8 supporters:

As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

Of course, he has to raise the stakes so he can ask for more money two paragraphs later. He’s so appreciative of the prayers and support. Won’t you give these whiny brats a special donation so they can continue to waste the government’s time with unconstitutional, discriminatory ideas?

Or, don’t. :)

Zack is flying solo this week, which is why we aren’t counting this as a real episode. After a weekend of partying with his college roommates, friends, and friends of friends (old and new) in the 518 as the token gay in the whole group, Zack sits down with a group of them to find out what it’s like for them to have him as a gay friend. The conversation took place on Sunday afternoon sitting in a circle of lawn chairs in a garage after a night of pirate-themed partying and morning of cleanup, so the mood was pretty chill. Find out how heterosexuals Judd (Zack’s roommate of two years), John, Patrick, Chris, and Erin (some female perspective) have been impacted by their gay friend in terms of their understanding of LGBT issues and perspectives on masculinity.

Check back next week for a very exciting episode 20. Don’t forget to submit ANY questions you want Peterson or Zack to answer! No holds barred!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Zack’s Theory on Straight Men with Gay Friends (and Glee’s portrayal of it)

» Peterson’s partner, Glen, has a great piece up on Prop 8 and populism.

What an exciting afternoon at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. The National Organization for Marriage took center “stage” on the steps but we actively responded and created visibility across the street for LGBT equality! (Click on the image to the left for the full interactive gallery or click here if you can’t see it!)

There was actually surprisingly big turnout for NOM’s part. Prop 8 Trial Tracker/NOM Tour Tracker counted NOM at 75. I heard that some Pennsylvania orgs (like AFA of PA, etc.) helped bring more people in. From where we were standing across the street, it was hard to see and hear NOM’s rally because of their bus—which I think was a good thing.

Our numbers were hovering just around 50 at any given time. We were mostly engaged in a honking war. People driving down the street from our side would honk for us and we’d cheer. Folks coming the other direction would honk for NOM (and the Catholics standing by the street, though that’s almost redundant), then see us and hide their faces in shame. It was pretty interesting to watch, and it was great to see so many passers-by offer us their support, including company truck drivers, city bus drivers, and even pizza delivery folks!

I think our counterprotest was extremely effective. We did very few cheers while NOM’s speakers were yakking away, but it might not have mattered because the street and bus were a great buffer. I say great, because we had a whole lot more visibility to traffic and the media spent a lot of time filming us and interviewing us. You can also see from the photos that we had a lot of positive messages and a great spirit of family, and when we did chant, it was messages of love and equality. We also sang “This Land Is Your Land” and “Gentle Loving People.”

I find myself wondering how differently our event would have been if Equality Pennsylvania had supported the event. For sure, as Adam Bink pointed out on P8TT, if the people who had come to last night’s event came today, we would have outnumbered NOM, as there was very little overlap. We’ll never know for sure, but we can rest assured that there is some amazing grassroots support in Central Pennsylvania who won’t let NOM go unanswered. I want to personally thank Audrey Smith and Kelly McEntree who both helped mobilize a lot of people to be out there today!

On a personal note, I was quite proud of my mother for joining me today. It was her first real act of LGBT activism, and I was actually surprised by just how fired up she got! She’s a great ally and it meant a lot to have her with me.

The event consisted of a screening of the new documentary Stonewall Uprising, which I found particularly compelling. Even when you know a lot of the history and precedent for your community, there is something incredibly powerful about hearing the story told by the people who were actually there. It’s also a stark reminder that what we know as “Pride” today started there, yet most people don’t understand the important historical roots of such events. If you have a chance to see this film, do.

Following the film was a youth panel, featuring student leaders from local universities (UPenn, Millersville, Lincoln, and Gettysburg). They spoke about the work they have been doing to increase visibility for our community, humanize LGBT people, and educate their peers on our issues. They were passionate and really related to the film, saying “anger can be a firestarter” and “you cant wait for others to achieve equality for you.”

It was great to hear about some of the successes at Millersville, but disappointing to hear about some of the frustrations at Lincoln, our nation’s oldest HBCU. There, they only started their LGBT student organization last year for the first time. We often think of our universities as these sanctuaries for LGBT students, but many have long ways to go.

What was most telling is that the student leaders were very aware of generational divides. In one sense, there was a defensiveness that many young people can be apathetic, but that isn’t necessarily representative or as accurate as some would like to think it is. They also recognized that young people didn’t live through Stonewall; they didn’t live through the times when homosexuality was most demonized. Nonetheless, they can be just as energized. They want to build better relationships across generations and always “give credit where credit is due.”

Overall, I thought it was a great event, with about 60 people in attendance. I was disappointed that at an event that was spurred by NOM’s Summer Tour, little if nothing was said about NOM, about demonizing tactics in modern day, or about marriage equality in general. I recognize that marriage is not Equality Pennsylvania’s number one issue; employment and housing discrimination are serious concerns for LGBT Pennsylvanians. Still, it seemed an opportunity was lost to capitalize on the frustration folks might have regarding NOM’s arrival in the city.

Today, we offer our own response. I will be at the counterprotest motivating those who want to stand up for themselves and doing what I can to document the event. Below is the press release:

August 11, 2010 – Harrisburg, Pa — On Friday, August 13, 2010 from 12:00pm – 1:00pm Justice League – Activate! a group based out of State College, Pa, Equality Across America, a national group that organized the National Equality March in DC back in October 2009 and Freedom to Marry, a national organization that fights for the rights of same sex couples to marry are glad to join the National Organization for Marriage in drawing attention this summer to the importance of marriage.

In announcing their summer tour, NOM declared that this is “an urgent time for marriage” and that “a strong marriage…makes a strong family,” “strong neighborhoods,” and “strong towns, cities and states.” We couldn’t agree more, which is why we believe that it is time to stop excluding loving and committed same-sex couples from marriage. Two major political issues involving same sex marriage in the United States involve the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage between one woman and one man and has recently been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts; and Proposition 8, a voting initiative that took the right of marriage away from same sex couples in California, which has also recently be ruled unconstitutional by Judge Walker in Sacramento.

At noon, the co-founder of Justice League – Activate!, Audrey Smith, a lesbian from State College, will welcome the crowd of counter-protesters and explain why marriage equality matters to her family. Equality Across America PAC 9 founder Scott C. Strait, a gay local college student from the Harrisburg area, will also share his story and then introduce Jesse Salazar, the Latino and LGBTQ Liaison for Senator Bob Casey Jr. After the various speakers from the audience have shared their family’s stories, the crowd will be led in some cheers that honor love and equality including: “We’re here, we’re queer, our families are REAL!”, “Gay, Straight, Black, White – Marriage is a civil right!” and more.

Those interested in joining the counter-protest should meet out front of the state capital at North Third and State streets promptly at noon on Friday. We ask that you wear red. We also must request that you are respectful to the NOM protesters and other commentators, keeping a safe distance at all times, and remember that this will be a family event.

For more information on the counter-protest or how you can become involved, email Audrey Smith at nimrochdain@yahoo.com or Scott Strait at ScottCStrait@Gmail.com.

From my point of view, it was an accurate word to use. The definition is “lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.” Here is an organization committed to being “the preeminent LGBT advocacy organization” in PA and to establishing “a comprehensive network of individuals and organizations united in securing equal rights for the LGBT community.” Yet they are backing away from an opportunity to be and do just that in a way which other state organizations have been quite successful with. (Including a picture of One Iowa’s rally was quite intentional on my part.) They also went the extra step of discouraging other interested individuals from counterprotesting. These are tactics that I not only disagree with, but which seem counter to the organization’s mission statement. Whether it was a concern for PR or otherwise, I see that choice as a lack of courage to stand up for stated goals, and so I used the word “cowardice” to accurately describe my disappointment.

Since that posting, I have been accused by various individuals that it amounted to “name-calling,” that it was “petty” and “hateful,” that “we shouldn’t be eating our own,” that I had no “principles,” that I am “counter-anything,” that I poked people in the eye, and of course, that I was “attacking” EQPA.

These are fair critiques. But what are they critiquing, exactly? It seems to me that they describe my tact (and my tact alone). They seem to reflect an impression that my tact was perhaps harsh, biting, unfair, out of line, disrespectful, taunting, weak, and/or unnecessary. They reflect a defensive point of view, certainly. What they do not speak to is the accuracy of my statement.

Why would I write challenging things about a local organization? I want what’s best for it. I want to hold it to a higher standard. I want it to represent me. I don’t want it to get away with speaking on behalf of the community. (I don’t want members of the community following its word like blind zombies out of some sense of loyalty or solidarity.) I want it to be accountable. I want it to have to explain itself. I want it to know that not every one of its actions pleases everybody. I want it to be able to take constructive criticism. I want it to be the best organization it can be.

I am not anti-EQPA. Far from it. If I didn’t stress it enough in yesterday’s post, I think the event they are planning this week is a good event. It’s education. It’s awareness raising. It’s coalition building. It’s a great event! I’ll be there. I’ll probably write about it (probably quite positively). And I will support EQPA in the future.

But while the movie/panel event uses NOM to raise awareness (and lest we forget, money), it does not actually respond to NOM. It does not respond to the message reinforcing discrimination. It does not provide the community with resolution or catharsis. It does not address the real need of members of the community to stand up for themselves and defend our integrity from NOM’s smears. And to not only ignore but discourage those needs out of concern for PR is, I think, a failing and represents a lack of courage and wherewithal to be the organization EQPA aspires to be in its mission statement.

But, if there’s a problem with my tact, I’m going to take that under serious advisement. I don’t want to be known as the schoolyard bully or some raving blogger who has it out for everybody. I want to be respected for my point of view and I want my critiques to be valued. If tact is going to be a measure of my contributions as much as content, then I have to earn that respect; I have to learn and grow to be that kind of blogger and activist.

And so, I apologize for using the word “cowardice” in association with Equality Pennsylvania. While I still contend that it was an accurate word, I did not intend for the hurt that it caused some individuals and do not wish to stand by that hurt. Intention only protects us so far; we are still accountable for perception. I hope that those who had concern about the tact of my piece can forgive me for where my tact was deficient and yet appreciate the concerns that I raise.

My concerns persist, but allow me to try to frame them more positively. EQPA has a new board, a new mission statement, and a new Executive Director, an individual that I proudly call a friend. It is, for all intents and purposes, a new organization. Here are some hopes that I have for it.

I hope that it puts the community first, even if there is the possibility of risk to its self interest. I hope it never discourages individuals from speaking out or engaging in activism. I hope it encourages individuals to get involved with activism not connected to EQPA. I hope that it never promotes its own message in such a way as to exclude other perspectives in the movement. I hope it does not ever try to speak on behalf of the community, and if it achieves the “preeminence” it seeks, I hope it does not ever try to act on behalf of the community. I hope that it supports and partners with other organizations and helps new ones get started. I hope that it maintains transparency and stays attentive to the grassroots instead of imposing top-down leadership. I hope money, lack of money, or opportunities to fundraise never dictate its actions. I hope that it raises great LGBT awareness across the commonwealth, particularly in rural parts of Pennsylvania. I hope it finds its own footing and doesn’t rely on other organizations for its outreach. I hope it brings new players to the table and provides extensive opportunities for individuals to get involved across the state. I hope it achieves equality in Pennsylvania and that even then it continues to do good work promoting and defending the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Pennsylvanians.

I have high hopes for Equality Pennsylvania. I’m challenging it this week because I have reason to be dismayed, but I challenge because I have hope.

You see, I think there is incredible importance in reacting. We need to stand up for ourselves. We need to create visibility for ourselves. We need to counter our opponents and their lie-riddled fear-mongering rhetoric at every turn. It’s a matter of integrity—a demonstration of our courage and our stamina. Alone, it’s not a winning strategy; you don’t win a game of chess if you only defend your own pieces. Still, it’s a vital part of our movement and our social well-being.

That’s why I am incredibly disappointed in Equality Pennsylvania’s cowardice in deciding not to counterprotest the NOM tour stop this Friday in Harrisburg.

The National Organization for Marriage has been driving around the US, rallying tens of people at their events, and then creating “breaking news” propaganda videos about how aggressive the counterprotesters are. It’s a devious tactic. Freedom to Marry and the Prop 8 Trial Tracker (“NOM Tour Tracker”), as well as bloggers like Jeremy Hooper at Good As You have been countering them at every turn, revealing the truths of their claims. They only have a few stops left, and on Friday they will be here in little ol’ Harrisburg, PA (it’s the capital!).

Equality PA released a statement explaining why they were not counterprotesting (emphasis in original):

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) kicked off their “One Man, One Woman” tour on July 14th. At each stop where there have been counter protests or attendance by pro-equality supporters, they have disrespected or mocked them and attempted to provoke them into screaming or yelling. Their goal in doing this is to make our side look foolish and hostile. We have also seen that they like to play a numbers game where if we have even a few less attendees than at their event, they will claim that the momentum is moving in their direction. We know from the recent polling numbers and the pathetic turnout their rallies have been recording, that this simply isn’t the case.

We are working hard to advance equality and will continue to do so long after they leave town. While we may be upset by their rhetoric, we can’t get caught up in retaliation when we need to remain focused on what needs to get done to win! Putting our energy into showing up at their event does not help to move us forward. What will help to advance equality in Pennsylvania is if we use them coming to town as an excuse to mobilize local activists and build our network.

So after NOM finishes their ranting and heads to the next town, we will be out there getting it done! We are holding a terrific event in Harrisburg on August 12, the night before they arrive, around a special showing of the movie “Stonewall Uprising” with a panel on youth activism afterward. We encourage everyone who can, to attend.

Click here for more information!

Not only is this a great movie, but this public conversation will increase our network and identify new volunteers and supporters. Please do what you can…attend, make a donation or just plain follow our activities. But please, ignore NOM when they come to town and don’t interact. Attention is exactly what they want, and why should honest people who hold equality close to their hearts be tricked into supporting their sad little charade.

This is an expression of cowardice. It buys into a “fight or flight” dichotomy that doesn’t reflect the reality of potential responses. The assumption is that we cannot respond to NOM’s rally without looking “foolish,” “hostile,” or retaliatory, ignoring the notion and potential of tact.

Is it possible to counterprotest NOM in a peaceful way? A way that creates visibility and builds unity for our community and our families? A way that makes sure that any media coverage includes stories of our experiences and our truths? A way that overshadows NOM’s message of discrimination without fueling their propaganda machine? It’s not easy to pull off, but such a way exists.

That’s why EQPA’s decision amounts to cowardice. Rather than take a risk, they’d rather not try at all. Maybe they should be ashamed, but maybe not. If they don’t think they have the resources or capacity to pull it off, I can totally understand why they wouldn’t want their stamp of approval on it. However, I resent the smugness with which they claim to rise above, ignoring the important catharsis achieved when our community rejects its own condemnation.

That’s not to say that EQPA doesn’t make some good points in their statement. It is true that NOM has been using their tour to paint a negative picture of activists, but it’s NOM. They’ll find a way to spin it their way regardless. Given that Harrisburg is the only stop that hasn’t had a major organization planning a counter response, I’d hate to see Central Pennsylvania spun as a bastion of anti-gay hate. I think EQPA is onto something with using NOM to mobilize local activists, and I think the film screening is a great idea. Educating about the movement’s history and raising the voices of queer youth is amazing, but it doesn’t undo the hurt NOM causes many by rolling into town to spout their incendiary drivel.

We have a serious problem if our movement isn’t willing to stand up to our opponents. I don’t think anything has been more compelling than the media appearances Olson and Boies have been making since last week’s Prop 8 ruling, unabashedly defending the truths of our lives and obliterating our opponents. That sort of visibility and education is exactly what many of the counterprotests have accomplished with their truth squads. It’s the kind of work an organization like Equality Pennsylvania should be prepared to handle without compromising their other proactive work.

Standing up for equality means standing up for equality whether it’s convenient or not. Even if it’s not on our playing field, we have to show.

That’s why I will be participating in a counterprotest on Friday at noon being organized by a group called Justice League – Activate. I will stand against NOM with my family, document their efforts, and speak on behalf of Pennsylvania gays and lesbians who still are subject to state-sponsored discrimination. If none of my friends will stand with me out of solidarity with Equality Pennsylvania, that’s their choice. However, I will not let preachers of discrimination control the media for the day without some visibility from the people they unflinchingly discriminate against.

While I still argue that proactive activism demands greater priority, reactive activism is important for our community’s maintenance. We have to be strong enough to rebuff our opponents AND push forward in spite of them. To ignore them is forfeit and I’m already tired of feeling like I”m on a losing team.

I hope you’ll join me Friday to show Central Pennsylvania that we are here, we are queer, and we care about marriage too. We want the same safety and security that marriage provides. We are proudly standing up for all families who just want to live their lives as happy members of their Pennsylvania communities.

In that previous post, I showed how many local churches here in Central PA were employing curricula from such extremist groups as Answers in Genesis and Living Waters/Way of the Master, groups intent on interrupting science education to promote their fervent creationist nonsense. These camps target kids as young as 3 years old.

As I was poking around The Daily Item yesterday, I found a story about another local VBS that shows just how benign such indoctrination can be. My point is not to paint these Sunbury folks as extreme or malicious, but merely to demonstrate how much privilege religion has in our communities and what easy access religious leaders have to our youth.

Maggie Kurtz woke up one day with a vision and decided to change the rules.

She succeeded.

Kurtz, 33, of Sunbury, is the director of vacation Bible school for the First Baptist Church, in Sunbury, and she decided it was time to get away from traditional methods and get in the minds of children and help teach them about the past, while having fun in the present.

“I wanted to have the children take a trip into the Egyptian culture,” Kurtz said. “When the children arrive, they enter Egypt.”

To be honest, her idea is pretty creative. As far as education goes, it’s a wonderful way to engage children’s minds. Unfortunately, her motive is to convey the Bible with the illusion that Bible stories are fun. It’s all just peaches and creme in that Old Testament!

You see, there’s this false juxtaposition. The folks in the story talk about how “amazing” and “wonderful” it is to see the “delightful” kids make Egyptian headbands and weave their own baskets. And these innocuous activities are paired with Bible teaching, thus suggesting that the Bible teaching is also innocuous. It’s far from it.

And consider: here is a mainstream local newspaper featuring this story about all the fun the kids are having. How many parents that aren’t even members of First Baptist are going to send their kids to the VBS so they can experience the Egyptian marketplace too? Talk about free publicity.

Gavin Shawder, 4, of Northumberland said he attended all week and had the time of his life.

“I enjoy this so much,” he said. “It’s a real good time.”

I say forcing religion (or sneaking religion) upon young minds amounts to child abuse and inhibits their free will. Wait until their brains develop enough before attempting to indoctrinate.

Jordan Hunt, 12, of Selinsgrove, agreed with his younger friend, but said he had other reasons for being there, not just the fun.

“I like it here and it is fun,” Hunt said. “But to tell you the truth, I really enjoy learning from hearing the Bible stories.”

I sure hope that Jordan doesn’t turn out to be gay. He might already be convinced the Bible is the place to look for answers and he will be led astray.

Sorry, I know there are many folks out there who aren’t bothered by Vacation Bible School, but I think it’s just plain evil.

I wonder if Maggie Kurtz might be convinced to talk a little bit more about modern-day Egypt and teach the kids about Islam. Let’s get some Vacation Qur’an School going and see if it gets covered in the local newspaper with interviews about how fun it is! I’m sure no one would flinch…

She graced the pages of Glamour magazine. She stunned the nation on Good Morning America. She helped launch a movement (Beyond Ex-Gay) and NOW she is our guest on Queer and Queerer! Zack and Peterson welcome Christine Bakke to the program. Christine is an artist, an activist, and an outspoken ex-gay survivor. As a lesbian who once tried to suppress and change her orientation, she now speaks out passionately about the dangers of treatments that try to “de-gay” you. She joins us to talk about the Prop 8 ruling, its implications for the Ex-Gay Survivor movement, exorcism, demon nests, and activist art!

Remember, send us your questions for episode 20! You can ask us ANYTHING.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Read the Prop 8 decision findings of fact in detail.

» The Slate Political Gabfest discusses the Prop 8 ruling.

» Meet Ryan Kendall, Ex-Gay Survivor and Prop 8 witness

» Details magazine looks at gay exorcism

» The APA’s Report on Reparative Therapy

» Be careful not to fall out of your RV!