The YouTube mash-up video is going viral. Clicking here will take you to the link to watch the video.

The “Little Fred Phelps Loophole” is based on David Fowler’s misguided legal reasoning. Fred Phelps and David Fowler get away with their religiously and politically based bullying as adults outside of the schoolhouse, but David Fowler inferentially wants young people who sympathize with Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church to be protected in their insults to other students in classrooms across Tennessee.

David Fowler told CNN that what I call the “Little Fred Phelps Loophole” is supporting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Now that David Fowler has disclosed his reasoning behind changing Tennessee’s law, he needs to understand what Tinker really means.

First, the decision in Tinker involved students who were punished for wearing arm-bands to school. The arm-bands represented protest against the Vietnam War. Second, the key fact in this case is that the students were punished.

Where are the little Fred Phelps wannabes who David Fowler wants to defend in Tennessee public schools? And, have they been punished?

The problem with the Family Action Council and David Fowler’s argument is that there are no apparent little Fred Phelps mimickers wandering the halls of Tennessee public schools using religion and political philosophy to say “God hates fags” or “Your dad’s military service is Satanic” to another student. And, if there were, they should be punished for disrupting the educational process or creating a climate of hostility in the school. Then, David Fowler and the Family Action Council could bring legal action against the school.

David Fowler speaks as though there are students whose supposed rights to religious and political bigotry are being silenced by public schools in Tennessee.

Here is the challenge to David Fowler and the Family Action Council: Bring forth your Tennessee public school student who has been punished for saying “God hates you and your family for its service to the American military” or “God hates you because you’re a fag,” and defend that right in the courts.

If all David Fowler and the Family Action Council can do is say that such speech is being chilled by Tennessee’s Anti-bullying Law, I have two things to say.

First, that’s great. Such speech is inappropriate in the classroom.

Second, challenge the law in the courts. Let’s see how far you get. Because if you have read the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Morrison et al. v. Board of Education of Boyd County, you would (1) know that Tennessee is in the 6th Circuit and (2) that a student’s fear of discussing his/her religious beliefs against homosexuality (or to extend the court’s analysis, beliefs against America’s military families) in a public school is not enough to strike-down a law in the 6th Circuit.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals requires “more” than a student’s silence due to fear of punishment to show injury from anti-bullying codes. The student has to be punished for actually violating the anti-bullying codes. The 6th Circuit asked that we see American Library Association v. Barr, which said that “[W]hether plaintiffs have standing…depends on how likely it is that the government will attempt to use these provisions against them…and not on how much the prospect of enforcement worries them.”

Fowler and the Family Action Council’s religiously bigoted Tennessee public school students in the 6th Circuit cannot point to anything beyond what the 6th Circuit would call their own “subjective apprehension and a personal (self-imposed) unwillingness to communicate.”

From a graduate of Tennessee’s public school system, I challenge David Fowler to bring-it-on: Give us some examples of what types of religiously-based bullying that are occurring in Tennessee that you believe should be constitutionally protected.

If David Fowler doesn’t have any cases of students being unconstitutionally punished under Tennessee’s Anti-bullying Law, then he has no reason to propose changes to it.

Fortunately, David Fowler’s and the Family Action Council’s student does not exist in Tennessee–there is no religiously-propelled bully who is challenging his/her punishment by a Tennessee public school. Given this, there are no reasons for making concrete changes to state law. David Fowler needs to quit tampering with good law and keep the “Little Fred Phelps Loophole” out of Tennessee schools.

Children who are gay or who have parents in the military do not need David Fowler defending their peers’s supposed rights to disrupt their education with Fred Phelps style hatred.

And, who wants students shouting “God hates fags” in Algebra class anyway? Is it really that important to allow disruptions of classrooms to promote David Fowler’s bigoted religious agenda?

I am proposing the following talking points memo:

(1) As Tennessee Equality Project’s Michelle Bliss says about David Fowler’s proposal, “It’s not written to protect our students. It’s written to provide a loophole.”
(2) Tinker was not about a student directing bullying speech to another student. It was about armbands and protesting the Vietnam War. Comparing the “Little Fred Phelps Loophole” to Tinker is a bad analogy.
(3) Mary Beth Tinker was a student who was punished for her speech. If there’s a problem with Tennessee’s law, then the punished bully should challenge the law in court on his/her religious grounds. See the 6th District’s Morrison ruling.
(4) Adding the “Little Fred Phelps Loophole” to the Anti-bullying Law will privilege some bullies’ speech and make the law no longer content neutral, voiding its constitutionality. The dirty loophole would have the courts throwing the baby out with the bath water.
(5) David Fowler’s “Little Fred Phelps Loophole” is to protect young people who speak like Fred Phelps in Tennessee classrooms. If you don’t know who Fred Phelps is, google him. You’ll understand why David Fowler’s proposal is truthfully a “Little Fred Phelps Loophole.”

Click here to listen to David Fowler and Tennessee Equality Project’s Michelle Bliss on CNN.

Tennessee Equality Project, the state’s leading LGBT advocacy group, is outraged that Fowler and nuts in the General Assembly would even consider such legislation.

My first thought was this: Did any of these anti-gay nuts attend public schools in Tennessee? I think this is an important question to ask of people who want to legislate what kind of disruptive speech can occur in public schools.

As a student of Tennessee’s public school system, I remember someone calling me a faggot in the middle of Algebra class. I think it is important to note that the teacher intervened and that the slur disrupted the Algebra class. What does sexual orientation, even if it relates to another student’s religious beliefs, have to do with balancing equations?

When we consider legislation to stop bullying in classrooms, it is important to note that the Supreme Court does not grant the same freedom of speech to students in public schools that it does for people speaking in public settings.

The Supreme Court has ruled that under no circumstances can speech be protected if it advocates something illegal or could lead to disruption or violence.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. It has boundaries in schools. Even if it is propelled by religious beliefs.

From the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood, legislators and those of us concerned with a religious exemption for bullying in Tennessee schools, should consider these five categories of acceptable censorship:

1. Publications or stories that materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline.
2. Material that interferes with the rights of students
3. Material that fails to meet standards of academic propriety
4. Material that generates health and welfare concerns
5. Matters that are obscene, indecent or vulgar.

The issue of bullying is not a matter of hate speech per se. It is more a matter of all five of these categories.

One might think that the second category, material that interferes with the rights of students, could promote a religious exemption for bullying because there may be a religious freedom to express hate toward gays. However, it is this “religious freedom” that the state has the prerogative to censor.

In censoring speech (i.e., name-calling, harassment, bullying, and anti-gay slurs) that (1) interferes with the classroom’s purpose, (2) interferes with the rights of students to receive an education, (3) is not within the standards of academic propriety, (4) generates health and welfare concerns, and (5) is indecent and vulgar, the state is within the bounds of the First Amendment.

Basically, the Tennessee Equality Project has it correct when they say that there is a reasonable and legitimate state concern in censoring speech that is not narrowly defined as “hate speech” but that is disruptive and harmful for students in a learning environment.

If the Tennessee General Assembly were to pass an anti-bullying amendment with a religious exemption for the law that is on the books, the law would be deemed unconstitutional. Hence, the entire anti-bullying effort would be thrown out like the baby in the bath water. It appears that the Family Action Council of Tennessee is idiotic, but they are really sneaky. If they sneak this exemption into the legislation, the courts will rule the entire anti-bullying accomplishment to be unconstitutional.

The Family Action Council, in effect, is trying to waste tax-payer dollars and waste the General Assembly’s time. It’s utter bullshit.

Here’s why the legislation would be deemed unconstitutional: because it would not be content neutral. Some speech (religious bullying) would be protected while other types of speech would be censored. Here are the four requirements for any piece of censorship legislation to be constitutional:

1. Rules must be content neutral on their face and in their application. (See Forsyth GA v. The Nationalist Movement). Rules must be written out in advance, and application of the law guidelines should be specific. This is the most common reason for striking down a law.
2. Rules must not constitute a complete ban on one kind of communication.
3. Rules must be justified by a substantial state interest.
4. Rules must be narrowly tailored: Say the city of Houston banned newspaper boys/girls from selling on street corners at all times; the court said that the city could ban at busy hours or at rush hour for safety, but that the law was not narrowly tailored.

The best anti-bullying legislation would be content-neutral entirely. It would require censure only in public schools and only of speech that qualifies as material that includes the five Hazelwood categories listed above.

Basically, if the Family Action Council gets this exemption into the law’s language, then they will have succeeded in killing the law in its entirety (at least upon judicial review).

The Family Action Council probably knows this is the case, and equality advocates in Tennessee need to call them on their bullshit.

What is self-disclosure? Self-disclosure is what it sounds like. It is how you define yourself in relation to the others in your environment. It is also how you share details of yourself that are not obvious or apparent to someone who has never met you. Take your spirituality for example. How does the stranger on the street know what religious beliefs you hold inside your private thoughts? It is only through communication that such private items about yourself can be disclosed to others. Some people, to extend the example, shout their beliefs for all to hear. They wear their beliefs about who they are and how things should be around them on their sleeves.

The same goes for gender. How does someone know you’re a male? Or a female? What if you look ambiguous, and you have never identified as male or female? Some people whom I have met would categorize your ambiguity as “gender-bending” or “transgender.”

The same goes for sexual orientation. How does someone know you’re gay or lesbian? Or straight? Or bisexual? Some people whom I have met would like to place every person whom they encounter into one of these categories.

Why do people categorize in the first place, though?

I’ve learned that people like to simplify their communication of the environments—especially the people in the environments—that surround them. Take the weather for example: is it a cold day or a hot day? We all know that the weather has more dimensions than cold or hot, but isn’t it easy just to say it’s cold outside? Or, it’s hot outside? The human tendency to categorize things is called heuristics. People love to divide extremely complex phenomena—like their communities—into categories. And, I have seen that people love to “fit” into a category within their communities.

If we choose to “fit” into a category within our community, it is absolutely necessary that we communicate who we are to others. It is possible to say, “I’m straight.” It is also possible to utter the words, “I’m gay” or “I’m bisexual.”

Basically, how you disclose your self is entirely dependent on what you say, nonverbally or verbally. It’s an issue of speech. If you place onto your desk a picture of yourself and someone who falls into the same gender category within your environment, it might communicate to others that you are gay or lesbian. But what about bisexual?

I have found in conversations with friends and in my own former prejudice, that a lot of people do not believe that one can be bisexual. Particularly, a lot of gay men whom I have met (including myself in the past) have represented the opinion that bisexuality is merely a façade to hide one’s homosexuality from full view.

It’s not true. There are “bisexuals” who are attracted to both “men” and “women.”

Bisexuals have tremendous difficulty fitting into the gay equality movement. What are “gay” people wanting to be equal to?

The simple answer is that people who identify as “gay” seem to want rights equal to those who identify as “straight.”

Unfortunately, one precondition of equality in American jurisprudence is that the courts must recognize a protected “class” of people. So, by the very structure of the legal system, people who are different than “straight” coalesce into identity categories. And, a lot of us call ourselves “gay.”

We call ourselves “gay.” We don’t inhale and exhale our gayness. Our hair does not grow gay to show our gayness. We speak it, both nonverbally and verbally.

In Nashville and across Tennessee, there is a debate regarding whether or not people’s self-disclosure speech acts should allow them to be fired from a job. A lot of gay rights groups label this an issue of equality. I propose that it is more of an issue of freedom—specifically, freedom of speech.

The city of Nashville, as an employer and as a government, is bound by the overarching principles of the First Amendment. The First Amendment supports freedom of speech and association. When employees of the city of Nashville speak freely and associate with a class of people whom they and their peers identify as “gay,” they are protected by the first amendment. So a picture on your desk at Legislative Plaza might suggest that you’re “gay”? Right? You might tell your boss that you and your life partner will be coming to the holiday party and suggest that you’re “gay”?

It is inconceivable that there have been no protections for one’s self-disclosure while working for the government when the First Amendment binds the government.

Simply put, the First Amendment protects people who utter that they are “gay,” “bisexual,” “lesbian” or “transgender” when they are working in a public capacity.

It is akin to telling a co-worker at the office party, “I observe Hindu beliefs in vegetarianism, so I can’t eat the turkey.” Or, “I’m a Christian, so I need to pray right now.”

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The absence of non-discrimination laws in government based on speech acts of self-disclosure curtails, lessens, or abridges freedom of speech where there are cases of discrimination based on such speech acts of self-disclosure.

The logic behind the opponents of non-discrimination is based on their will to discriminate. To allow discrimination through the legislative process by banning nondiscrimination within government is to violate the free speech component of the First Amendment.

It is clear, no matter how hard we argue that gayness is something we are born with, that there is not definitive evidence to support our claim. Too many people think it is conditioned, and I, for one, cannot provide incontrovertible evidence to the naysayers. No matter how clear I make it that I am born as gay as they are born straight, they just don’t get it. And, they are the majority in Tennessee.

That is why I realized that my sexual orientation is a speech act to them. And, I realized that it ultimately was my self-disclosure speech act to make. The when, where, how, why, and to whom I choose of my self-disclosure is also my right. It is my First Amendment protected right to say who I am to others. And, it’s your right too.

When lawmakers, like Glen Casada who is employed by the people and his government, hide behind the closed doors of the Lifeway building—a Christian building—to protect their rights to their religion, why the hell can’t those gay people who are employed by the people and their government not protect their rights to freedom of speech?

Those people who support discrimination and oppose nondiscrimination based on their religious reasons need to realize that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender identity representation and self-disclosure in the public sphere is an issue of free speech.

And guess what. The government can’t establish any one religious belief system over another. Nor can the government prohibit religious beliefs. And like many GLBT people, I believe God made me this way.

While I get it that Tennessee EQUALITY Project is about equality and while I understand that equality is important to protecting a class of people, I also recognize the diversity of the queer experience, an experience that paradoxically benefits and loses out when we place people in categories.

People speak who they are in this society. It’s a given. And, everyone has a unique story to tell. Why does the religious right single out a group that has a few similarities because we rile them up?

Because the religious right profits from hectoring. Hectoring is a the process of rhetoric and communication that divides people for a purpose. The leaders of the religious right, particularly the Southern Baptists, get money from their members so that they can have big houses and nice cars. While some people seek jobs as businessmen or teachers, these leaders seek jobs as preachers. Their obedient churchgoers pay their bills.

They elevate their membership as a moral majority or an elect minority among the worldly people outside of their houses of worship. They do this through hectoring. The outsiders are not welcome, and that enhances the value to the insiders.

At a very basic level, the religious right preachers hector their audiences within their houses of worship on every Sunday. They announce that you have either been saved or you have not, you have either performed the duty of giving money or you have passed the collection plate without putting anything into it. They announce, like Maury Davis of Nashville’s Cornerstone Church does, that if you are gay you are not welcome in the church house. They divide, and then they conquer.

I’m a fan of equality, but I don’t think I want to be equal to the people who sit in Maury Davis’ church. Nor do I want the same life as someone who sits in a Southern Baptist cesspool.

I want freedom, and so does the bisexual, gender-bending male with female anatomy.

So, it is my hope that in 2012, people will start talking about freedom more than equality. I think it’s a winning proposition.

And, this proposition is more “queer” than LGBT because it transcends the categories imposed on us by those who literally thrive from categorizing and hectoring the society in which we live.

There are so many people who transcend the acronym LGBT, who are simply queer, and who are even marginalized by the LGBT community. Particularly people with mixtures of sexualities and genders. They are the unseen colors of the rainbow.

And, there are other colors of the rainbow. Celebrities and world leaders, according to CNN and her website (click here to see her website), are celebrating a child prodigy painter named Akiane. Akiane says that she produces her world-renowned art inspired by God. Akiane claims that in her visions she sees colors that do not exist in this world. If we can take Akiane’s ability to see unique colors and combine this with the LGBT symbol of the rainbow flag, we can have a queer culture that encompasses all of the varieties of identity representation through self-disclosure.

Please use the comment area below to offer suggestions and to express your opinions. There are so many perspectives, and I have spent years trying to understand a queer way of seeing the world. This blog reflects that development. It is an evolution of queer thought.

A referendum (in plural form, referenda) is a question posed to voters during an election. When voters enter the voting booth, politicians give voters the chance to create laws or to amend constitutions through voters’ direct choices.

In 2006, the Tennessee General Assembly carried-out a referendum on gay marriage. Voters were voting on whether to amend the Tennessee constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Hypothesis

As a student of political science at the time, I discussed a hypothesis with some friends at Jackson’s Bistro over martinis. I hypothesized that Tennessee’s anti-gay referendum would drive moral values voters (people who cite moral values as being the most important issue in elections) into voting booths and affect election outcomes to the detriment of gay rights.

Many people believed that George W. Bush’s success in 2004’s presidential election was based on anti-gay referenda that mobilized values voters nationwide.

In fact, Ann Pellegrini, Professor of Religious Studies at New York University, in a 2008 reflection (click here to watch her lecture on YouTube) said, “The moral issues that mobilized so-called values voters and supposedly turned the election for George W. Bush in 2004, abortion and gay marriage, do not seem to have traction this time around.”

Pellegrini’s statement was based on assumptions similar to my own in 2006. The logic flowed as the following: because anti-gay attitudes were popular with values voters in 2004 and because anti-gay referenda in 2004 appealed to these attitudes, values voters were mobilized to go to the voting booths and affected election outcomes along with the referenda outcomes.

Flawed Logic

That logic was flawed because, in fact, anti-gay attitudes were not popular among values voters in 2004.

The fact is that “moral values voters” in 2004 were more concerned with the war in Iraq than they were with gay marriage. George Chauncey, a Yale professor and author of Why Marriage: The History Shaping Today’s Debate Over Gay Equality, writes:

Although most morning-after-the-election commentators accepted the Christian Right’s claim that concern for ‘moral values’ signified opposition to abortion and gay marriage, one poll showed that 42 percent of ‘morals’ voters said the war in Iraq was the most important moral issue influencing their vote, compared to 13 percent who chose abortion and less than 10 percent who cited gay marriage.

The Christian Right

In politics, “spinning” an issue is manipulating it so that it serves your own goals. Spinning an issue deceives voters regarding the facts of the issue, and spinning implies an ethic or moral belief that the goal of one’s statements justifies the words, no matter how untrue or how deceitful, used to achieve the goal.

The Christian Right’s claims on all of the news television shows about the 2004 election were spin. This spin became entrenched in American culture, and until I read Chauncey’s book, I believed the Christian Right’s claims. The Christian Right’s claims, although proved not true today, demoralized gay rights activists and led us to believe that a snowball of anti-gay attitudes was affecting the politics of America.

Rick Perry

Those political advisors and politicians (especially those of the 2011 Rick Perry campaign) would have been well-advised to have read Chauncey’s book. However, in a campaign culture that is so fervently homophobic (as evidenced by the “Strong” Rick Perry campaign advertisement), reading such a book and increasing one’s literacy on the history of gay and lesbian struggles would be taboo.

Rick Perry’s campaign made the mistake of believing that American values voters are predominantly anti-gay. Rick Perry’s campaign also made the mistake of not doing its homework (i.e., not consulting Chauncey’s book or other information available on the dynamics of values voters).

On December 13, 2011, just one week after the Perry campaign uploaded the “Strong” ad to YouTube, it has become more unpopular than Rebecca Black’s highly criticized “Friday” music video. Almost 667,000 people have hit the “dislike” button below the video. Perhaps it’s because Americans see through political spin when it is so blatantly based on false assumptions.

Perry states in the ad, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s somethin’ wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school…”

Kids really can’t openly celebrate Christmas in this country? I think this lie is too obvious for most people.

Rick Perry doesn’t get it. He and many other candidates in the Republican presidential nomination race do not have schooled consultants on GLBT rights.

GLBT Rights are Human Rights

The problem is that today, the world is beginning to recognize gay rights as human rights. The US State Department has promoted this view, and anyone who is going to represent the US on the world stage is going to look idiotic if he or she reneges on this belief.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said, “Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same” (click here to read her remarks in recognition of International Human Rights Day).

In 2012, candidates for the presidency who do not recognize gay rights as human rights, who spin moral values to be detrimental to gay rights, and who fail to read-up on GLBT history will probably not be competitive. Rick Perry, being such a candidate, should stop his campaign with this being his campaign’s last “Oops” moment.

However, this has to be the most heart-warming and cutest blog post ever because a parent shares that her 6-year-old son identifies with gay Glee characters, to the point of obsession.

Perhaps, such wonder and awe at the portrayal of two young guys who love each other is inspired by the lack of media portrayal of gay characters. Then again, moments like this show that entertainment media are getting somewhere with helping gay children to have role models.

Additionally, this kid’s parents took the right approach in affirming their child’s identification with gay characters on television, as opposed to hurtfully repressing his identification.

Click here to read the story from Tumblr.

As of 1:55 p.m. central time on July 14th, 2011, Groupon.com has sold 1,786 discounted ticket deals for the Nashville concert.

Will you be going?

The resolution will commission the first U.N. report on the challenges that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face around the world.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made gay rights an important focus of the State Department’s human rights agenda.

Click here to read the CNN story.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following press release on Friday as well:

“Today, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the first ever UN resolution on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. This represents a historic moment to highlight the human rights abuses and violations that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people face around the world based solely on who they are and whom they love.

The United States worked with the main sponsor, South Africa, and a number of other countries from many regions of the world to help pass this resolution, including Brazil, Colombia, members of the European Union, and others. This resolution will commission the first ever UN report on the challenges that LGBT persons face around the globe and will open a broader international discussion on how to best promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.

All over the world, people face human rights abuses and violations because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, including torture, rape, criminal sanctions, and killing. Today’s landmark resolution affirms that human rights are universal. People cannot be excluded from protection simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The United States will continue to stand up for human rights wherever there is inequality and we will seek more commitments from countries to join this important resolution.”

In her writing, she finally explains the logic that the proponents of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill advocate for not discussing LGBT sexuality. While it appears that there would be no logic behind the bill and while such “logic” has not been discussed in Tennessee conversations on the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, Band exposed the reasoning by the misguided proponents of the bill.

According to Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, solutions to the problems of the high LGBT suicide rate include proposals like the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The Guardian quoted Sprigg: “The most effective way of reducing teen suicide attempts is not to create a ‘positive social environment’ for the affirmation of homosexuality. Instead, it would be to discourage teens from self-identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

Basically, Sprigg and others who support the “Don’t Say Gay” bill believe that forced repression–i.e., sweeping the topic under the rug–would prevent LGBT self-harm.

Band countered Sprigg’s assertion in the Guardian by posing a question. So, for all of the people supporting the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, here is the question that Band asks:

The idea that being LGBT is something that should be hidden only gives further credence to the idea that these traits are shameful and clandestine – after all, talking about the day out you had with your same-sex partner is hardly material fit for casual conversation, is it?

Band made a good counterpoint to the advocates of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill when she concluded that it is not the sexual orientation trait that causes terrible statistics of self-harm but the bigotry surrounding LGBT people.

While the bill is in Tennessee’s predominately homophobic legislature, this is the “logic” (that strangely enough arose in the United Kingdom’s newspaper) that must be dispelled. Those who oppose talking about sexual orientation in Tennessee presumably have their reasons, and those who support talking about sexual orientation must show them why these reasons are faulty. And, let the discourse begin!

Click here to read Emily Band’s piece in the Guardian.

Instead of saying, “I’m going to march in a gay pride parade,” you can say, “I’m going to a Takei Pride parade.”

Click here to watch George Takei’s message. The message ends with a short jingle repeating the words, “It’s okay to be Takei,” and the singer’s vocals are reminiscent of a jingle from an episode of SouthPark.

Takei’s message put a smile on my face and gave me some laughter today. I hope it will do the same for you. To visit his website behind the YouTube video, where you can purchase items with the logo, “It’s okay to be Takei,” visit this website: http://www.itsoktobetakei.com/