Senseless

I had literally written an entire post for today, and then ended up deleting the entire thing. Perhaps it was Facebook's Safety Check sending my 30th update of the day as my friends checked in one by one to say that it was ok. Maybe it was Donald Trump's celebratory tweet, or maybe it was the incredibly thoughtful posts that so many of my friends, both within the LGBT community and without have been spreading around. Likely it was a great combination of these things that made me feel that my thoughts were too clinical, and in some ways far too nice.

I am tired of these tragedies. This one hit closer to home for me than anything since 9/11. People are calling this attack senseless. It's a phrase thrown around a lot, and seems so full of sympathy. "This was simply senseless." This shooting was tragic, but it wasn't senseless. In fact for us to say it's senseless belies the truth of the situation. The truth in which too many people in this country have said "this is ok."

This shooting was a targeted attack. It was both an act of terror and an act of hate. This man came into a space that for so many people was one of the only places they felt free and safe to be themselves, and he deliberately attacked them. Over 100 people were attacked by this man. It wasn't a crime of passion, it wasn't in the heat of the moment. It wasn't senseless. He knew exactly what he was doing, and what he'd hoped to accomplish. And he did it well.

The main problem is that in many ways, what he did was ok to a lot of people. Look at the Lt. Governor's tweet about us reaping what we sow. Trump's call for more anti-Islam hate. Hell look a bit closer to home, where the Governor of Florida had signed into law a bill that stripped all adoption rights from LGBT individuals, because they "weren't fit to be parents."

When our elected officials are allowed to do things like this, they are being allowed to set the stage for what just happened. You can't constantly say that someone is less than someone else without also diminishing their basic humanity. I'm sure that Omar (the suspected shooter) didn't feel like he was killing real people. He'd been led to believe in his hate, that they were something else, they were "the enemy." This happened to the LGBT community. But we set the stage for it to happen to a lot of different people. Being different can't be equated with being lesser. One religion isn't right or wrong. One race isn't good or evil.

This Presidential election season has shown that we allow our hatred for things different to run deeply. So few people were able to converse about facts and issues without demonizing the opposition. Sometimes violence occurred. In terrifying instances, it was encouraged. Candidates were not called on just their issues, but who they were. Their sex, their age, their families. It's all the same thing. Anytime we allow someone to be cast as something less than equal, we open the floodgates, and I want to see them slammed shut.

I am overwhelmed at the support and emotional posts that people are spreading, and I hope to see them continue. I hope that as this news cycle ends and this terrible story starts to fade into the background, that we can continue to support ideals of hope and humanity instead of divisiveness and hate. Maybe then we can have less of these acts that we have to claim are so senseless to make ourselves feel better.

Pink and Gleeful, yet still freaks

Let's face it, though she may not be the first name that pops into your mind, the gays needed little help when it comes to loving Pink. Her fiery music that could nearly always spin out on the dance floor with lyrics that speaks to the best and worst of our times, live performances that put her peers to shame, and an unshakable affinity for those that sometimes don't just seem to fit in, she is definitely and artist easy for us to adore. Of course this week, that love was given an newer outlet when her song was sung by the gay heartthrob in Glee. Anyone who has a Twitter pulse could see a myriad of posts over the next day shouting out to our "nitty gritty dirty little freaks" or telling us to "Raise your Glass." I shouldn't have been surprised when the next day I typed as far as "Ra" into google that the first thing that popped up was "Raise Your Glass Pink Lyrics." Clearly this song was on fire across the nation, and especially with the gay boys.

I had the chance to briefly meet Pink at the HRC National Dinner this year, and more importantly, I heard her speak. I have always been a fan of her music, but listening to her talk about her views of the world and people whom others label as "different" really struck a chord. This wasn't a diva trying to drum up some gay love. This was a woman who felt exactly what it was that so many gay teens across the nation feel as they struggle with being what much of our society still considers "wrong."

Pink's songs are a perfect fit with Glee. The capital "L" for loser that Glee so openly embraces runs through the heart of the show in the same way that it runs through Pink's words. Being me, I had to of course re-listen to the song in my head over and over, alternating between Pink's and Darrin's voice. Then, to satisfy my love of words, I read the lyrics too. The combination of the Glee themes, also exhibited in the original songs combined with Pink's powerful lyrics got me to think about how strange it seems that we still have the idea of "losers" and "freaks." All Pink's "little underdogs" really seem like they shouldn't still exist outside the realms of "normal" and yet somehow they do, especially towards the gay world.


Why is it that we as a society can still marginalize people? We have the knowledge to make this seem ridiculous. First, looking at history, it is the freaks, underdogs, and losers that have shaken this world up when it needed it the most. The US wouldn't even exist in its current form if not for these kinds of people. Secondly, how is it that with all of the information that we have pouring out about ourselves and each other with the web and social networking can we not realize that most everyone is a freak in one way or the other. Ok, so you're a jock. You also "like" old school Mario video games, and used to play house with your sister. You may be prom queen, but your family photos show exactly how much of a tomboy you were for most of your life. Everyone's got at least a little "freak" in them, and yet we still have to pick on it. Even when something seems "accepted" by society, we still manage to push these "accepted people" to the margins.

Being gay is at a seemingly weird point in our history. In some ways we are so accepted that many people feel that being gay is a "non-issue." I mean we have high schoolers kissing on prime time television! While this can be a great thing, it has also lead to an almost ignorant view of the world that still has teens killing themselves because society still says that who they are is wrong. Many of us can't seem to decide whether or not we should allow being gay to matter at all. I hear so often that "being gay isn't who I am." True statement, but does that also mean that we must then give up our camaraderie and shared companionship over being gay? I have always been opposed to this removal in any form. Being gay may not be ALL you are, but it is indeed a part of who you are. There is nothing wrong with embracing this as part of you and celebrating it, not just "accepting" it by ignoring it's there.

I think that the answer to the tough questions we have about what to do, and how to live in a society that still seems to need to label so many of us as "outside" are right at our fingertips. Where can we find these answers? Just ask Pink. "Raise your glass if you're wrong in all the right ways." Embrace who you are, gather together and "Never be... Anything but loud." Don't lose your voice, and eventually, just like in Glee, the best part will follow and everyone will want to be a "Loser Like Me."

The OTHER sin of Pride

Given that it's Pride month, many writers have turned their pens towards LGBT issues, and Rev. Patrick Cheng is no exception. In his article, The Spiritual Significance of Pride, he addresses many different issues relating to Gay Pride and it's Spirituality. Being a Christian minister, he of course delves into things that I could care less about, most noticeably the hellish notion of Original Sin. Despite these differences, he makes an incredible point that I had to work with.


One thing that many faiths, but most notably Christians, regard as a high sin is PRIDE. Now if you have read nearly anything I have written or spoken to me for more than 20 minutes, you know that my views on this "sin" are not the same as many. That said, I do think that too much pride- like many things- can be a terrible thing in life. What Cheng mentions is that the LGBT population more often than not suffers from Pride's inverse sin: Self Loathing.

Given the long-standing historical condemnation of pride as the root of all sin in the Christian tradition, how can we understand LGBT pride to be a blessing and not a sin? As an openly-gay theologian, teacher of theology, and ordained minister, I believe that sin is not just limited to pride or inordinate self-love. Rather, sin -- defined as the way in which, despite our best intentions, we inevitably turn our backs on who God has created us to be -- can also take the opposite form of inordinate self-hate or shame, something that many LGBT people experience from a very early age.

Nice point there. Regardless of the religious implications, I believe that anything that makes us hide or turn our backs on who we are is a detriment to ourselves and to society. To think of it as the inverse evil of Pride I believe is perfect. I think that people often feel so good about being humble and self depreciating that they don't realize when they take it to far and make it something terrible in the form of shame or self-hate.


In fact, I would say that shame far more than pride is a serious problem today. Most of the people we see as prideful are exhibiting it in the moment. They may treat people poorly, be over arrogant, etc. While this is bad, I believe that the damage is rarely lasting. Self hate on the other hand has a constant negative effect on yourself and everyone around you. You tear yourself down. You limit your potential, which also means you are bringing less value into the world. You hurt the people around you by closing off, and inflicting unintentional pain both directly, and indirectly when you hurt yourself.


This kind of shame is not exclusively held by the LGBT community, but I would say that in our society, we have a larger portion of our population exhibiting it. No matter the source of your self-hate, I think that a healthy dose of pride and confidence that you truly embrace is mandatory for a successful life. During this month of Pride, we should all take time to be happy for what we have accomplished, and for who we are. Spend some of the great energy we have created to remove some of the shame that we can still carry around with us. The great thing about self-hate, is that like guilt, it is never so heavy that you can't just set it down. Take some of the Pride we are all sharing and do some good for yourself, and maybe even live with less "sin."


If anything I would say that "sin"is anything taken to the point where it excludes all else and/or inflicts pain. For all the publicity that pride gets in that department, I am pleased to see some in the religious community like Rev. Cheng who realize that the original ideas of sin as set down by Christianity are not necessarily the most damaging, nor are the only thing that can take us away from who we are, and if you are a person of faith, take you away from your Creator.

Life Definitions

It has been a long time since my last post, and I just realized this will be #100! Woah. I like to talk. Well in true Rick Raven fashion, no easing in from my long break. Why not tackle the big questions!?

A conversation I have had a few too many times to count happened again today, and it made me think a lot about a much larger question.

The conversation settled around what being gay meant. This friend happens to be one of those “enlightened” gays who insists that being gay is an infinitely small part of who they are and “doesn’t define who [he is].”

Statements like this of course bring up all my standard responses such as what other aspect of your life dictates so much of your time as who you love, etc. My view has always been that the closest thing to your sexuality is probably your religion in relation to your life, but after the conversation was over, I realized that there was a much bigger argument and question to be put forth.

What exactly defines our lives?

My friend, for example says that he defines his own life. This statement is of course obvious. Unless you are a weak willed puppet, this will always be the case. So we define our own lives. But how? What measuring stick do we use? What is ok to allow to define your life?

I would venture to say that many people choose to let religion define their lives. I would say that most of us are defined in large part by our jobs. Is this ok? What about your upbringing? Your education? Are there rules as to what can define your life and what cannot?

To me it all seems pretty ridiculous to say that something can’t define a part of your life. I would say that the only time that some definition to your life is really a bad thing (even if I happen to hate it, Hellllllo Christian Right!) is when that is ALL that you are. When one single aspect of your life is so all encompassing that it doesn’t allow the vast complexities of life to mesh together to create some greater you, that is a problem. For the rest, let what you will define who you are!

Looking inwardly, off the top of my head, I can definitely say that I am definitely defined by being gay, living on the East Coast, specifically NYC, being a hopeless romantic, being a Sagittarius, having experienced an Ivy League college, and being encouraged to read as a child. I am sure that I would think of more given some time.

Now that I think about it, we may have both past and present definitions to our lives. By this I don’t mean things that don’t define who you are anymore, but rather things that are in our past that still shape our lives, and the things that are our present, and our person that continue to shape and define us. When you mesh these together, you make up who you are. I think that we all have things in our past, and aspects of our present that could make us who we are, but we choose for ourselves what will have the biggest impact. And I don’t necessarily mean events. X event will definitely cause Y which may have a huge impact on your life, but you may still not choose to let it define you. For example, being adopted definitely changed the course of my life, but I don’t think it defines me as a person.

In the end, I guess I agree in part with what my friend says. We do choose what defines our lives. We do so by embracing aspects of our lives, memories, people, places, thoughts, and ideas. Some may be huge like your religion, some may be small like who you met on the street. But our choices make this matter or not. I think that the fallacy that so many fall into is thinking that nothing defines who you are, or running away from things that might. To me, who you love is always a HUGE matter to your life. Many other things can fall into this as well. The true enlightenment is not in running away from things that might define your life, but rather embracing those things you want about yourself and learning to discard the rest and letting it fall away, making you the meshing of your own choosing.

Profound Pride

Growing up and coming out in the Midwest, Gay Pride to me was a big street festival for gay people. Booths with people hocking wares and supporting causes you might never see elsewhere and a park-like area filled with fun people pretty much summed it up for me. The Parade was an excuse to show off your gay-rights group, pretend to be a politician who cared, or just be… well, gay. These were the only things that seemed to come from Gay Pride.

This year, I learned differently.

This was my first year living in New York, and also my first NYC Gay Pride. I was expecting the mass insanity of the parade crowds, and basically, a much bigger version of all the Prides that I had seen in the Midwest. How wrong I was.

This year, I finally learned what Pride is supposed to be.


In New York, we have an entire week of Pride. During this time, I saw what pride really could be: a celebration of the diversity that gay people bring to a community at home, work, and in the cities we live in.

Walking down Times Square, and seeing the Hard Rock Café change their video board to honor Pride was completely unexpected. Many companies (including MTV, thankfully) had town halls both for their LGBT co-workers and for their company at large concerning gay issues. This effort showed that companies are doing more than what they need to get by. They are showing the value of the people that work for them. I smiled when I saw the shy co-worker wear his rainbow bracelet for the first time, just simply showing that he was comfortable and proud of that part of himself. I got a kick out of "allies" that made a concerted effort to show their support for their friends and family.

All of these examples showed me that we could use this time to celebrate an aspect of our lives in the same way that many cultures and religions do on their holidays. For them, it is more than a specific day on the calendar, it is a time for them to celebrate that part of who they are, and watch as the people around them celebrate it too.

I would never want to give up the parties, parades, or festivals that come with Gay Pride, but knowing now what can truly come out of this time, I would never want another pride without this deeper, more meaningful aspect. It is my hope that as the new additions to our Family come out, that they get the chance to realize what being Proud of who you are is all about. Hopefully, the community around them shows them how Proud they are that they are a part of it too.

"Forced" a response

If any of you have been living in a cave, Lawrence King as a gay JUNIOR HIGH student, murdered a while ago. Today, this article was published:

Gay Tolerance

Schools overplay gay tolerance
Lazarus Austin
Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at opinion@reflector.msstate.edu.

In February, Lawrence King was shot to death at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, Calif. What sets his murder apart from others is that King was openly gay. He often flirted with his fellow male students and wore feminine apparel and accessories. His murder has brought onslaughts of paranoia and calls for tolerance by gay rights advocates.

According to The Washington Post, gay rights advocates are claiming that King’s murder is the "extreme consequence of a growing but often ignored phenomenon." The phenomenon they are referring to is homophobia.

As a result, they are calling for more tolerance education in schools and stricter anti-harassment rules. Many middle schools and high schools are opening gay and lesbian clubs for students. Other schools are openly teaching students about homosexuality at an early age, often at the frustration of parents.

Furthermore, schools are cracking down on bullying. They, of course, do not want bullies harassing people with a different religious belief, sexual preference, race or gender.

I have two problems with the controversy. First, people are blowing the situation out of proportion and automatically assuming King’s murderer killed him simply because King was gay. This reminds me of how people love to cry racism when someone kills a person of a different race.

His alleged murderer, Brandon McInerney, 14, and also an eighth-grader, had a rough upbringing. According to The Washington Post, McInerney’s parents divorced in 2002. His mother dealt with drug issues, the father had been accused of shooting his mother in the elbow, both parents had filed restraining orders against the other and both had been accused of domestic violence. Supposedly, McInerney was a good kid in school, so the results of his upbringing are hard to judge. However, if you ask me, McInerney was probably a fuse ready to explode, and King’s fraternization possibly sparked it, which brings me to my second point.

By imposing his homosexuality on McInerney, he may have set McInerney off. McInerney may not have had an innate hatred of gay people. In fact, he may have tolerated homosexuality, while simultaneously thinking it was immoral, sinful or simply "uncool," like many people do. King, however, may have gone too far by imposing his sexuality on others. Although King by no means deserved his fate, he may have unfortunately invited it.

Now, gay rights advocates would like to force their homosexuality on others and promote tolerance in schools. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it? The problem lies in their methods. Many of them, by teaching tolerance, also teach values, whether intentionally or not. In 2006, one school was sued because one of its teachers read a famous children’s book advocating homosexuality called "King & King" without parental permission to 7-year-olds.

"My problem," said the suing parent, according to a transcript of "American Morning" on CNN.com, "is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

The focus should be on targeting harassment, not tolerance per se. Some people may think gay people are immoral or, as Michael Venyah would put it, "going to hell." Promoting tolerance can instill in children’s minds moral and religious values. Furthermore, it can make them think that homosexuality is the norm and, in my opinion, encourages them to be gay, which is OK but not something schools should be promoting. If at all, tolerance should formally be taught at the upper grade levels, starting at high school.

Some gay rights advocates would have homosexuals permeate society, from TV shows and films to teachers and bishops. I say just let people be gay, don’t forcefully stick them in everybody’s faces and in the limelight.

King sounds like he was a good kid, and what McInerney did was absolutely unjustifiable. However, some want to use King as a martyr for the wrong reasons. Gay people should and do have just as many rights as the rest of us, but no more. Minorities shouldn’t get special privileges, only equal privileges. However, murderers, including those of gay people, should get a special privilege, the privilege of rotting their lives away in prison where they deserve to be.


Of course having read that, I had no choice, but to write a letter to the editor in response. Here it is:

Regarding Lazarus Austin’s article, "Schools overplay gay tolerance" I must say that this letter is, dare I say, forced, by Austin’s misguided words.

The most surprising thing about reading Austin’s article, was the following to the bi-line that said he was a history major. One who studies history should surely see the faulty logic that was displayed throughout the article.

Interestingly enough, I would not necessarily disagree with his first "problem with the controversy." It is entirely possible that the child’s upbringing had more to do with him becoming a murderer than his innate homophobia. The interesting thing is that he follows that up with refuting his own argument, by saying it was a "hate crime," but because he felt that King "forced his sexuality on him." You can’t have it both ways. Either it was a murder based on hate or it wasn’t. Whether or not King "invited" it is a different issue entirely.

As for the "forcing" issue, this is one of the most obtuse arguments a person can make. I mean that thusly:
We do not consider a guy flirting with a girl "forcing" their sexuality, yet if this girl happens to be gay, by Austin’s rules, he is indeed forcing his sexuality. One could equally make the same argument for forcing all children go to "traditional" sex education. Any gay children are instantly having straight sexuality being forced upon them. Similar arguments exist for any type of affection, etc. which is viewed as fine when it is a guy and a girl, but "forced" when it is two guys or two girls.

Lastly is the biggest disappointment of all. As a history major, Austin should know, that you cannot reduce crimes of intolerance (of which bullying and hate crimes both fall into) without teaching tolerance. No group in history has stopped "picking on" (also seen as murdering or enslaving in the historical sense) without the oppressors learning tolerance. It is a fallacy to think that you can reduce bullying in schools without teaching tolerance.

The argument about saying that gay people can be happy and "right" is teaching morals of course would go back to my earlier double standard argument. Allow me a moment of intesnse sacrcasm to point out that if you can’t show gay people as happy, please, don’t allow movies that show a person making a mistake and being redeemed, don’t correct children when they make a mistake, don’t share personal aspects of your life with your class, as I am sure, all of these, simply by existing show morality, and we certainly wouldn’t want that.

-Rick Raven

More Idiocy

t never fails to surprise me how dumb some people can be.

Here are a few "brilliant" takeaways from Just Out’s interview with Oregon State Senator Gary George who is pushing a ballot initiative to repeal the Oregon Equality Act that was passed last year (among many things, preventing people from being fired based upon real or perceived sexual orientation).

Just Out: What if an employee is fired because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity? Isn’t the Oregon Equality Act in place to guard against such discrimination?
George: As an employer, I don’t wanna hear about it. This workplace is for work purposes. My advice to the gay community is SHUT UP, just don’t talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel.

Just Out: What is your reaction to the recent murders of out gay youth in Florida and California?
George: Obviously murder is murder, there’s no excuse for that. Here’s what I’m saying, I think we’re seeing a backlash, in other words if you push me too hard don’t be surprised if I react. Gays will tend to react violently if people are oppressive toward them. If gays are oppressive toward straights, then you’ll see a violent backlash. You’re going to have a point where these groups develop and say I’m tired of these special privileges.

Just Out: Are you suggesting that gays, by virtue of being out and open, are inciting these types of violent reactions?
George: You have to recognize for every action there’s a reaction…we’re obviously not gonna tolerate anyone who beats up any other person.

If you do feel like you’ve been discriminated against as a gay, you have hard feelings. I remember when I was heavy and wore glasses as a child and I was picked on. We all know the gay person that nobody notices – I think that is where we need to head. Everybody knows where the line is, so when I see I’m offending someone, I have to back away from that. We have to adjust our behavior so as to not be offensive. If you push anyone too hard, they will react.

My plea to the gay community would be, hey, mature. We have brilliant, brilliant people within the gay community.

In his "defense" he said he was tired and wasn’t thinking about who he was talking to and was thinking of another incident…

Because that matters.

These are the people that represent this country. Aren’t we lucky?

So far to go

It should come as no surprise that after a week of board meetings for the HRC, I would have the struggle for gay rights on my mind. Coincidnetally enough, when I peruse my friends' blogs, one of them had made a post about the Victory Fund. Part of that, was an inclusion of this video:

**Warning, you may end up angry after watching this.



*Thanks Lana
You can e-mail the… person… in the video at sallykern@okhouse.gov

I am sure she deserves to hear from us.

I have a lot of friends, particularly now that I live in NYC (where we have non-discrimination politicies, etc.) that think the fight is pretty much over, or unimportant. The fact that people in power are still able to say things like what was shown in this video says differently.

One of the people that we heard from this weekend was a guy who lost his partner in a plane crash. His story, while sad was made all the worse by the fact that no one would tell him anything. He watched the news, not knowing who if anyone survived, if there were injuries, etc. His calls the air controllers were met with "You're his partner, not family, therefore we can't tell you anything." Insanity.

The level of ignorance people still exhibit and the prejudices that exist towards different people (no matter whether the difference is sexuality, race, etc). I understand that people are built thinking of things in a certain way, but you would think that in times of crisis, your compassion would outweigh your ignorance and you would do what you could for someone else. Apparently this isn't the case.

So often I feel like the wins and loses that we face are the ones in the political arena. Examples like this remind me that there is a larger war going on in the minds and actions of individual people. Unfortunately, despite progress, it seems like there is still a very long road ahead. It makes me happy to know that myself and so many people I know are doing what they can to make a difference in this "conflict" that we simply cannot afford to lose, and that organizations like HRC makes enables us to make a dramatic change in the world.

Too much like a conservative straight woman?

Well, the fact that I am sitting here writing this at Starbucks means that the jury is still out on the success of my birthday. Undoubtedly tomorrow will bring some sort of posting on the good or ills of my day.

I find myself at a point of reevaluating some of my long held beliefs. It started slowly, as I was time and time again confronted with friends that worked outside what I thought were the ideal ways to handle a relationship, but ended with a bang. I have been reading Dan Savage's new book, The Commitment. Like his previous The Kid, it is sort of a personal memoir about something he and his partner have experienced and how they dealt with it. When I read The Kid I was made aware of various problems in parenting, both in general and specifically as a gay man and had some very thought provoking moments as I read it. The same has held true with his most recent book.

There are lots of things that I am bound to think about, and I am sure that at some point I will get around to many of the other points in later writing, but right now, I have only one focus: monogamy, and lasting relationships.

I have always held the idea that a real relationship is one where monogamy is mandatory. No questions. When I dated Daniel, I was challenged to a degree in this belief, but in all of our time together, we really never had to confront it head on, so I pretty much was able to continue to float along with my opinion. Since that time, I have if anything strengthened this position, asserting that the only way to have a truly lasting and healthy relationship was to be 100% committed to each other and no one else.

Now a few friends who have known me well pointed out the fact that no matter what my opinion was in theory, and no matter how much I might not cheat, they were absolutely positive that my boyfriend cheating on me would not be a deal breaker. I am too forgiving and would rather have the relationship succeed than one night of weakness to destroy all we had built. They are probably right, but as of yet, I haven't had to test this hypothesis.

As I mentioned, several friends in long-term relationships that don't necessarily believe in monogamy have recently come into sharp conflict with my opinions. Some are to the point where I would simply get angry, feeling they were betraying themselves and whoever they were with. The angrier I got, the more I had to wonder if this wasn't a case of me using anger to hide the fact that in light of their success I was losing logical ground. I hate losing logical ground, and if I was indeed overcompensating with anger, this was a bad sign indeed.

Dan was the catalyst that ensured that I really had to come to grips with my real opinion on this. About halfway through the book, Dan has a chapter that he devotes entirely to sex with other people while you are dating someone. True to his consistently reasoned approach, he points out many different angles and uses several examples. Cutting as short as possible, he cites the Greeks, Romans, and Jonathan Katz, who says that monogamy is "one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma." In ancient times, the value of marriage was placed over that of monogamy, and in fact it was accepted that being with one person for the rest of your life, had everything to do with life commitment and little to with who you slept with. The evidence that people weren't designed to be monogamous and that any attempts to break our nature is pretty pointless. It's funny because in this instance, I feel like all the religious people that I despise trying to say that only in denying ourselves can we be "good." No better way to win me over than make me feel like I am acting like someone I hate.

Denying or trying to hide the fact that we are attracted to others is ridiculous. As Dan says, "It's impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people must be all things to each other- that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction-does a great deal of harm." Now Dan certainly isn't making a case for polygamy, permanent singlehood or stupidity. In fact, his case is presented in the only way that I ever would have been forced to reconsider myself: the fact that his case is for saving marriage.

As I mentioned, the ancients didn't have the same hang-ups we do. In fact, only in the last century or so has the idea of complete monogamy become so socially adamant. Strangely, Dan also points out the fact that the steady increase in divorce rates mysteriously starts at the same time. Coincidence? No such thing. So how is it that being with other people can save your relationship? Well, he conveniently gives 2 great examples. In both these examples (one gay, one straight) it is strong couples who are totally devoted to each other, but have set up the "rules" to which they can expand their sexual experiences without damaging their relationships.

1. Terry- (The rules here are less specific) They must be safe, not in any way endanger their child. They don't hang out in bars or do internet hookups, but if the right circumstances are met, "cheating" is allowed. The two examples he gives are three ways (obviously much more applicable in gay relationships) but implies that in the ten years they have been together there have been a few other circumstances outside of three ways.
2. Billy- "Should the opportunity arise or present itself in such a way that it can be taken advantage of discreetly, without doing emotional harm to the other person or endangering the other person, than either of us can take advantage of the opportunity." He goes on to gives 2 examples. One at a restaurant, where a woman outside was incredibly hot. Billy kept turning to look at her, and instead of getting enrages, his girlfriend teased him, telling him he was busted, and switched seats with him so he can have a better view. They "spare each other the trauma of pretending." Interesting. The more extreme example of this rule is with this woman at the bowling alley. He says, "If… I was out with some friends and Kelly was out of town or having a girl's night out, and Red over there and I hit if off and things proceeded as thing sometimes proceed, I could take advantage of the situation without guilt."

Both guys point out that they have these rules, and by allowing the freedom, neither couples have acted on it very often, but neither do they have to worry about the snide comments of "you were looking at so and so" or the heartbreaking revelation of cheating. In both these instances of course things like affairs would be deal breakers, and the ideas behind the rules is that they are there to strengthen the relationship not destroy it. Dan says that they've made their "desire for others a non-issue." He goes on to say that, "Indeed, as most heterosexual swingers report, the times we've had sex with other guys has actually enhanced our desire for each other. Far from tearing us apart, the times we've had sex with another person… have renewed and refreshed our intimate life. It's made our home more stable, not less."

I am forced to admit that he may be onto something. I know he isn't the first. He brings up so many other examples like the aforementioned swingers, etc. and of course there are all my friends that seem to make it work. Maybe it is society that is forcing us to take this narrow view, and maybe in this one instance I have allowed it to shape my own thinking, possibly to my detriment. Thank God for the ability to reevaluate our opinions and become smarter before we destroy ourselves.

Too much from too long

Yes, yes, I know a month is far too long not to have written something, and frankly I have had a lot to say, but for some reason it never made it to the "paper" so to speak.

First, let's get it out of the way. Last night was insane. I have finally connected with the HRC people in New York, realizing that I knew a great many of them from my years going to all the national stuff, which was nice. As my first real event, I attended the town hall that was held to talk about ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). For those of you who haven't heard, the entire gay community seems to be up in arms at HRC for supporting a bill that provides coverage for the LGB community, but leaves out the T. In brief, let me say that HRC had little choice in the matter if they wanted to keep the relationship they have with the congress, and if they wanted to move towards full equality for all. In their mind, taking steps is the best and fastest strategy, and I agree.

Anyway, the town hall was held to help us disseminate information to the community at large, and try and answer any questions that they may have had. What it became instead was a pulpit-style bloodbath.

Most of the people that attended the event had no interest in a town hall to get information. They didn't ask questions, they attacked the panel with a barrage of rants. For the record, I don't call them rants because they were disagreements; I call them rants because they were mostly illogical, repetitive strings of words that accomplished nothing. I especially hated people that tried to use history on their side when clearly they didn't know what they were talking about, as out nation has time and time again proven that baby steps often net the most results in the end. I hope that some of those people left feeling better for having got some of their anger off their chests, because no one really left that room with more information on either side. I do want to commend the few people that were thoughtful and intelligent. They certainly weren't on our side, but they seemed generally interested in getting information so that their opinion was based in fact and not assumption. More than half of these thoughtful people were obviously students, which may say something. More and more I realize that age has very little to do with rationality or maturity.

Alright, enough of that. Last time I wrote, I mentioned that I finally made the move to New York. I am loving it. I have had some significant money issues, though that springs not from the move itself, but rather the general job market at the end of the year. The jobs that I was planning on taking are holding off till the beginning of the year, so for now things have been a bit tight. I am actually better off having moved, as my bills have surprisingly decreased a great deal being here. The only other effect that the money thing has had on me is that as of yet I still haven't really been able to delve into the social scene the way I would like to. Even my friends are sometimes hard to hang out with as most often we would go out to a bar or to eat, something I am doing a lot less of at the moment. Despite the fact that this one aspect of life here is still temporarily closed to me, I am so happy to be here. I wonder sometimes if I waited for too long to make this change.

One final thing that I want to mention was a new experience for me. For the first time in my life, I felt nostalgic. I was doing some scholarship work at Columbia University, and the moment that I was there, I felt strange. Not strange in a bad way by any means, but strange in the fact that the feeling was new. I realized after a while what it was, and was somewhat surprised that I had never experienced nostalgia before. Being at the school reminded me so much of Harvard I can't even explain it. Being there surrounded by beautiful old buildings dedicated to education while people walked swiftly from place to place seemingly overwhelmed with a drive to learn was something I missed without even realizing it. It has been over eight years now since I left Harvard, and I tell you I didn't realize till then how much I miss it. Even working at a university like that makes me feel good in ways that are still beyond my understanding.

New experiences are always a good thing in my book to have this one be such a good one, and at the same time for it to allow me to experience first hand something I hear about a lot but until now have never truly understood is a great thing.

New thoughts from unique events

What a week! Normally, I don't use blogs to describe many specific things that happen in my life, but this week was so full of new experiences it is hard to differentiate the events from the thought-provoking philosophies that they bring out in me.

I did two things I had never done before, and like most first times, they made a significant impact on me.

The first was judging for an event that I have been wanting to do and building up to for a long time. HRC in Kansas City has an annual comedy night, and we always bring in great national talent. Last year we added a great local emcee, but I thought if this were a normal show, we would have an opener. Given the amount of talent we have in the city, why not give someone local the chance to shine? The result? This year we held our first ever Comic Call, a competition to find this talented person. As I was in charge of the event, there were some unique struggles, but the big kicker was the fact that I was one of the three judges. To make it more interesting, we did it in an American Idol/Project Runway style where the judges made witty and sometimes scathing remarks. New territory for me for sure.

All in all, the competition went very well, and I think I held my own (particularly hard when grouped with a brilliant drag queen and a spunky journalist). It was interesting to see the reactions though. Some of my HRC friends were surprised I could be so "mean" while others said that I held back far too much. I guess it isn't surprising that I would accomplish both in the same competition. I will say that I have newfound respect for reality TV and live judges. It certainly was a lot harder than I had imagined. That said, I really enjoyed myself. I have always liked to have just some of the spotlight, and something like this allowed me to break out of my mold (as fluid as it may be) and do something I think I would have fun doing more often. Not a bad combination.

Last night held another first: attending a gay wedding. Let me tell you that there is nothing quite so interesting as seeing one of the most traditional events known to man recreated when you are by many definitions, defying tradition. Mixing the tried and true with an entirely new twist provides a lot of potential for amazing creations. Last night's wedding was even more unique because John and Ron may be the most creative people that I have ever met. Somehow they were able to take a Victorian Goth theme, bring together artists, actors, producers, bankers, and lawyers throw them all together and create something that was truly beautiful.

My friend Rae at some point in the evening said to me that she thought it was so beautiful because it was all about love. The ceremony and circumstance that can occasionally stand between the wedding and the reason behind it were completely meshed with exactly why we were all there. Friends and family came together, and both grooms shared their happiness with all of us. In a word, it was extraordinary. I have been to lots of weddings in my life, but none moved me so much as this one. (I can't really compare it to my brother's wedding, seeing as my familial bonds and involvement give it an entirely different feel. I love you Kellie!)

Looking back, it is hard to know where the change started. Ron and John certainly had a hand in it, but I think also that so much of the world still says that what we experienced last night is wrong, and shouldn't be done. Even those who "like" gay people still seem to hold out when it comes to marriage. Maybe when you have to work so hard to prove that you deserve what you want it forces you to make the most of it, when others take it for granted. Many weddings I go to make me feel like an outsider who is looking at people sharing in something that I shouldn't have. Last night, all I felt is that this is exactly what I want in my life and what I will have. The love that my two friends share with each other and with the rest of us is truly one of the most beautiful things on the planet. I think the priest last night may have said it best. "Looking at you, I know God blesses this union." Let those who think otherwise be damned. No matter what you believe in, God, gods, fate, or chance, you can't deny that something so wonderful isn't exactly the way it was intended to be.

New York and Dinner Musings

The first day in New York, and my excitement is barely tempered by my exhaustion. Coming straight from the National Dinner was a bit daunting, but I am very glad that I did. More and more it is so obvious to me how much I need to get out of the Midwest and move to an urban center that I can really enjoy. So far I have only spent time with the friend that I am staying with and nothing truly exciting came onto our agenda, but in some ways this meant more to me than doing anything that I "needed" to do while in town. I look forward to when I can live in a location like this and enjoy some of the simple things whenever I want. The trip to Alice's Tea Cup and dinner at a quaint Italian restaurant without ever having to drive a car made me quite content.

I have decided that bus drivers, especially in some place like New York seriously have one of the most difficult and nerve wracking jobs available. I mean driving in traffic is bad enough as an individual or even as a cab driver, but to be responsible for so many people while driving such a huge vehicle in the insanity that are the NY streets.

I should take a minute to talk about the National Dinner. The weekend itself was great, and I reconnected with a friend and definitely moved our relationship to stronger territory. Any of these events that bring together so many HRC people turns out great. It was so nice to see friends from afar. I was forced to examine how poorly I actually keep in touch with my various friends around the country. Some of us seem like we are really close, but as time and distance separate us, I have not really figured out how to make the most of those relationships.

The dinner itself was certainly motivating. Tim Gunn was hysterical, and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Solmonese both gave great speeches that moved many of us. I know several people that were attending their first dinner and the change in their motivation was noticeable. I did happen to end the evening by pushing my alcohol consumption beyond the limits of anything I have had before, but that is another story. Leaving DC as always brought me to a new level of energy. I am excited about all the work that I have done with HRC and can't wait to continue to make a difference with them as the years go by. More immediately, I am excited to continue to experience another city that I love so much.

Concert Review: True Colors Tour

Last night I attended the True Colors Concert in Dallas, a benefit concert put on by HRC, Logo, and the Matthew Shepard Foundation. Cyndi Lauper was the creator of the tour, inspired after a conversation with Judy Shepard at the HRC Dinner a year ago. The goal was to raise awareness for the Hate Crimes Bill that is currently going through the legislature. It was certainly inspiring. I was moved by the performances by all of the artists, and the reactions of the audience. Having experienced this, I am pretty sure that I will only seek to attend concerts that are for a good cause. For one, I like my money going towards good things, but also I think that it creates a different environment when people come together to do something great.

I was fortunate enough to have front row seats. If I had felt like daring security, I could have easily touched the artists. That's how close I was. I did take a lot of pictures, but I realized that it is time to get a new camera. For casual use, it is a fantastic piece of equipment, but shows always leave me wanting more. Knowing that I was close enough to catch every subtle facial expression, but not having most of my pictures exhibit this was frustrating.

Technically, I went by myself, but strangely I found that I was constantly running into friends of mine. I really wasn't aware of how many people I knew in Dallas. It was especially great to see so many of my HRC friends, since really we only get to hang out while we are working ourselves ragged at the DC trainings and events.

All of the performers got a chance to say their piece about discrimination, and hate crimes, which was completely heartfelt and a great addition to the show. Among the entertainers, Rosie O'Donnell and Margaret Cho provided comedy relief, and they were both in top form. I really enjoyed them both, and thought that they added a lot to the show. Rosie was funnier than I have ever seen her, and followed that up with singing backup vocals and playing the drums for Cyndi, which I thought was neat. I was especially happy that in the end, all the entertainers came back on stage for the final two numbers.

All in all, I had a great time, felt moved by what was there, and was really happy that something like that was so well embraced by the community.
I did manage to catch some video. The first has poor sound, but the dancing was fun, and the second was just such a great way to end the show.

Right Place at the Right Time? And More Trio Musings

Last night after a successful HRC Meeting, the evening continued at Trio. As is often the case when I am with those friends, particularly at that bar, many interesting topics came up for discussion. I always like these conversations, because there is such a wealth of experience to draw on, and from so many different places and viewpoints. I was the only one under 30, and most were over 40 with significant experience, so they all have a lot to say.

Over the course of the evening we talked about a great many things, and I really enjoyed the travel conversations. I am working it out to not increase my travel per se this year, but rather to expand the places that I go to. I have been pretty much every where in the U.S., but already I have now put on the agenda Brazil and Hawaii for this year. I am also looking at 2 European trips next year. I have always had friends abroad, but I am finally putting off taking these trips.

As seems so often is the case, the subject of relationships came up. While I certainly like hearing their viewpoints and experience on the subject, with everything I am trying to deal with on my own, this was the one subject I would have been happy to avoid. Alas, as one of the people at our table was mulling over some serious issues, the inevitable conversation ensued.

One of the interesting thing that we did talk about was the differences between guys and girls, and even more among gay men and lesbians. With the latter groups there does seem to be some fluidity, but some things seem more the same. The girls were pretty much unable to grasp the thought of having a "friend with benefits" while the guys had seen, if not experienced it quite a lot. There was speculation about the relationship that women have with sex compared to men, but then there were two of us who felt like we empathized with both groups. One friend had enjoyed casual relationships in his past, but now was happily married, which is what he really wanted. The casual ones were fun, but not the ultimate. I certainly understand the distinction. Another guys talked about how even in relationships, sex was simply for recreation, and though it took place within a relationship, it was just fun no matter what. The girls were in direct opposition to this.

One thing that did surprise me was the clear stated value of the "u-haul." The common joke is that while among 2 men, the first date always leads to sex, with 2 women, the first date always comes with one of them bringing a U-Haul. This of course meaning that they move in right away. I have seen some evidence of this, but have never really given thought to the pros and cons before. Listening to both the men and women agree that while scary, moving in sooner than later can save a whole lot of time. Obviously you have to be cognizant of how easily you can recover if things go sour, but as one of the girls said, "There is no better way to find out if there is really the potential for the long term." I can see how this is true, and when I think of some of the bad roommates people put up with, it's kind of a wonder that people are so afraid of moving in too soon. Some might say that you have to wait for the right time, which of course brings us to the most interesting topic.

Is timing everything? The last thing that we talked about, the one that I really philosophize about is the matter of timing. The phrase "the right place at the right time" is said so often, and yet looking at it, I wonder how often this happens in relationships. Listening at those couples who have lasted the longest, it seemed almost that they met at some of the worst times for one another. It kind of goes to what I have talked about before, when people tell me that when I look for love I won't find it. The only times I find I am not looking for it, is when it really is a bad time in my life due to whatever extraneous circumstances exist. In those moments, by these standards, it would be so the wrong time, but the most likely that I will find what I really wanted. It doesn't help that my current circumstance falls obnoxiously into this category on both sides.

My friend Michael made a big deal about talking how looking for timing makes us forget that relationships are work. No matter how happy or unhappy someone is alone, it truly is easier. In his case, he is quick to add that the work he puts into his relationship with his partner is the most valuable thing he does, but it still is work. The girls chimed in, agreeing completely and saying that often the work brings great rewards, and can even be fun while it is happening, but it is still a great effort. My friend that brought this subject up was mentioning how he had not met someone when it was the right time, and that there were points he had met people when he shouldn't be in a relationship. The table was quick to respond that though you have to be cautious when looking at what is going on in your life before getting into something serious, timing can be your worst enemy. Life is so tumultuous, if you wait for the perfect time, you will almost certainly miss the perfect mate. Chances are, both don't come along at the same time. As this conversation continued, it made me wonder so much about what I have seen in my own life. To hear these people who hold some of the best relationships I have ever seen all come to agreement on this, and yet have others say that overcoming timing can be impossible, I can't help but wonder how two people can both overcome the circumstances in their own worlds to make sure that they can be together. I certainly know that I feel much more likely to look simply for the right guy, not try to be in "the right place at the right time." I would rather work for something incredible than to fall into something less worthwhile.

How is it Different?

So as most of you know, the show I just got done producing had a lot of gay themes in it. To put it more specifically, the world was opposite of this one, where the norm was gay and straight people were completely marginalized. Of course as the show progresses, there are gay moments, straight moments, and of course being a musical, gay musical moments. ;-)

What bothers me is this. Some of my family saw it. Those who did made the mistake of bringing friends, specifically one or two that were immature jerks who I wanted to kick in the face (I happened to be actually watching that show on a date. Yes, a date.) Apparently their incessant talking that distracted from some of the greatest moments of the show were centered around the fact that they were "weirded out" by some of the "gayer" moments.

Of course then there were all the family that didn't come, not because of prior engagements, but because they said, "Why would we want to see a gay show?" Can something make me want to scream a little more? I mean I play the "eww gross" game about girly parts every once in a while for fun, but seriously, how can something with gay themes bother anyone? And for that matter, what do these close minded people think runs through our minds every time we see… oh, say ANYTHING!

We live in such a heterosexist society that it at times drives me crazy. The fact that after six years of being out to them, many of my family still can't grasp the simple basic premise that being gay is simply loving someone of the same sex. I swear, most of them have no problem with the fact that I would sleep with another guy, but to see two guys existing as a "normal" couple totally weirds them out.

Why is it that something has to be mainstream to be ok? Why is it that nearly anytime I watch a movie or a play, I watch parades of straight romances and because that is more common, I am supposed to be fine with that while a simple gay kiss gets people freaked out?

My mom (who is blessedly not one of the people who gets crazy about it) tries to defend people, especially certain siblings, by saying that they are trying. Pardon my American, but bullshit. Trying is making a concerted effort to understand something. Trying is not going on six years and practically being a distant memory from your brother's life because you don't want to understand. Not looking at something as much as possible and only getting "a little" crazy when you are faced with it is not trying. That is cowardess.

I hate that there is a gay film industry that can only sell their films to gay people. I don't blame them, I blame the society that makes it so. Why is watching Prom Queen only for gay guys, but She's All That is ok for everyone? Even with the most conservative estimates out there (which from personal experience are ridiculously low) nearly everyone knows someone who is gay. So why is it that having a gay character in a movie is so crazy? If you have 10-20 cast members without one being gay, something is seriously awry in your filming diversity. And yet it happens all the time. Even worse, when they include a gay character, it is under the radar. They are never "actually" together with someone. You just get hints that they might be. Come on! And I am not even talking lead roles here. Simply background characters that are allowed to be themselves would be great.

Ugh. I could rant for ever about this. I hate how people allow themselves to be close minded and then try and come up with excuses. "Oh, we just aren't used to that. It's not that it bothers us." Rriigghhtt. You can take your 13 year olds to movies where men practically rape women on screen, but a simple romantic kiss throws your entire existence into spin. That certainly makes sense to me. Suffice to say, I am tired of feeling disconnected from my family and it being my fault for not being patient enough with them, and I am tired of being patient with a world that simply doesn't want to open its eyes to see anything different than what they are. Wake up world! Every day you are surrounded by people not like you. Before you decide how much you want to turn away from them, why don't you wonder what it is that they feel like when they look at you.

Moral Values

I hate hypocrasy. I think that is one of my main beefs with the average Christian. Apparently, others can feel the same. And you know, for once, I don't think I could have said it better myself:

What Are Moral Values?
by Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Mayflower Church, Oklahoma City

Updated August 10, 2005


As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, a church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by those who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.

We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.

When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.

When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.

When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.

When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva Conventions, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.

When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.

When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.

When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.

When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.

When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.

When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith -- compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.

When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.

When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.

I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war.

I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong -- the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?

This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up t to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.

Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith. And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the greatest failure of faith.

There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? absolutely nothing. And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed?

How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.

Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness.

http://www.mayflowerucc.org/

Is That Really Necessary?

I have held onto this for a little while so as not to implicate any specific party or individual.

So... imagine this scenario:

You go out and have a nice time on what may or may not have been an actual date. Regardless of the title you have a nice enjoyable time with someone that you do indeed have an attraction to. You stroll around for a while having nice conversation before walking them to their car (which happens to be in a public garage). When you arrive at said vehicle, you stand around and chat a bit more, enjoying the company of the person that you are with. At some point, the idea comes across to one party or the other that a kiss might be a nice idea, and a nice innocent kiss is shared, though it may in fact have been witnessed by a few individuals. After this moment, the conversation continues. Imagine the entire scene at the car lasts only 5 minutes or so.

As you are nearing the end of your conversation, but before goodbyes are said, you are approached by a security guard saying that you can't loiter in the garage, and you need "move along." While I am sure you can imagine a slight frustration, there is no real significance to the event, until not 10 seconds later, before the first guy has even left, another, zooms up in his "car" stating that you have to leave the garage immediately.

Hmmm...

Suddenly this seemingly innocent direction becomes something else entirely. This "story " is something that is a bit dark indeed. This happened to me, and I have held onto the story for a bit, but it still bothers me just as much. If you didn't gather from the story, ambiguous though it was, someone, whether it be the original passersby or the guard(s) him(them)selves, didn't very much like the idea of 2 boys sharing a moment in a parking garage. Now, I should also point out for those of you who don't know me that well, that I was quite serious when I said that there was a brief, and innocent kiss followed by more conversation. I am not a guy who likes to make out with people all over the place, but am also not afraid to show affection. To see people be so bothered by it, upsets me quite a little bit.

Now, I did take some time to think about the fact that maybe I misread the situation, but there are three factors I can't get around. 1. I don't normally feel victimized, so I wouldn't imagine that would be my first response. 2. The person I was with, called me and felt the exact same way. And finally, 3. I have had LONG conversations in that very same parking lot before with random friends, even groups of friends, where the security guys come and go all the time with no second glance. I think about it and I think that a lot of people end up at someone's car chatting it up after doing something before saying goodbye. You see it at the movie theatre, bars, restaurants, everywhere. Nope. This was different.

I guess I am telling this story both because it bothered me a little, and I like talking about the few things that actually upset me, and to marvel at the things that people let get to them. At what point did two people caring about each other become a dangerous or harmful thing? How does that even effect someone else? I am of course not just talking about this instance, but the constant tirade that people have about not only being gay, but any other form of expression that people find fault with. Seemingly for all of human history there have been those that are threatened by the harmless actions of other individuals, and so they turn violently against those things that are inherently peaceful, and sometimes even good. You would think that there are enough real dangers and problems in the world that need to be fought against that people would have more than enough conflict. Oh well. That's that. It is probably something I will continue to be challenged by and something I will continually lend my voice to.

Change a Mind... Save a Life

I bought a CD (Utopia) last time I was in DC, and this is what it contained in the cover. I think it speaks for itself:


Letter to the Editor:


"As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life with no dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

No choice
At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.

For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will?

If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

Principles?
You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending.

My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?" --Sharon Underwood

ABB Voter

First off, sorry about the lack of writing yesterday, the Gala Dinner went really late, and I was dead by the time I got back to the hotel. Despite its length, the evening was wonderful as always, and I was very glad to have participated in it. Speakers came from all walks of life and included Elizabeth Edwards, Cheryl Jacques (HRC President) Rosie O'Donnell, Jessica Lange, Max Mutchnick (Co-creator of Will & Grace), and Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop.

The speeches were all very good, and got me even more excited about the work that the HRC is doing. It also gave me hope for this election. Today at lunch, we had another round of exceptional speakers, including Andrew Sullivan, one of the few conservative voices I can often agree with.

Between the two events, I became even more determined to do my part in the comming election. I realize that it's not enough for me to know what is right and to use my vote, I must also use my voice. Too many times have I let people give me weakly founded reasons why they are going to vote for George W. Bush in the comming election.

Now let me start off by saying that I cannot think of anyone who in thier right mind can vote for the president, whether they are Republican or not. In fact Andrew Sullivan said it best when he stated that Republicans have more reason to be outraged at this President than Democrats do, and I think that he's right. My friend Daniel Graves has always told me that he wants to change the Republican party from the inside, taking it back to its roots of small government, and away from the morality that they try to impose upon us. I think that this is a noble goal, but George Bush has taken the party back decades if not centuries on this line of thinking. He has placated the radical right so much that we have all but removed the veil between church and state. I meet more and more Republicans who are rightfully outraged by what he was doing, and you should not EVER support someone simply because of their party if they do not follow with your beliefs. In fact, especially if they don't follow your beliefs, because it shows the party what is truly important. Bush's radical agenda is not mainstream America, or even mainstream Republicans, it is radical, and it is disgraceful.

I have heard lots of people try and justify their decision on economics, so I figure that I will lay that out here too. Since an early age, I have understood the theories of economics very well. Let me be the first to tell you that there are very few people in this country or even this world that benefit from the economic policies of our President. He has lost more net jobs than any President in a century, his "pro-business" tactics don't really help small businesses at all because they give such a boone to large corporations that they can easily quash their smaller competitors. His tax breaks, while moderately helpful to the lower and middle class, take more money out of the government than they ever will put back. The upper class (which got almost all of the money from the tax cuts) are proven less likely to spend their money than middle and lower class citizens, and when they do spend it, they are more likely to spend a larger portion of it abroad. This is not money that is comming back into the economy, completely negating the "trickle-down" argument supplied by this administration.

The final, and worst argument that I see most often comes even from my most repected friends, and that is they don't want to be an "ABB or Anybody but Bush" voter. Let me tell you that first of all, while John Kerry may not be the ideal President, he is certainly better than the sitting one. No one in their right mind can say that Bush has been honest and open with us. He has used false information to lead us to follow his personal agenda. Also note here, that I am not disagreeing with the war (that is a seperate issue I will not yet address), but I am saying that we were not given the adequate information as a nation to make the decision of whether or not we should go to war. He has misled us, and he has not done his job. The economy is not recovering in the areas we need it to, we have made more enemies than friends across the globe, and we have not gained any significant benefits out of his four years. I say to you, YES! ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!

Finally, I want you to think about what this election means. Last night, Cheryl spoke of this being the "single most important election of our lives" and I believe it to be true. I think that more often than not, people look at the next four years when they consider a President. We cannot do that this time. In all likely hood, the next President will appoint at least 3 Supreme Court Justices. Their tinure on average is 40 years! I don't know about you, but I cannot fathom what our nation would be like with justices appointed by the same man who appointed John Ashcroft. I do not exagerate when I say that it terrifies me. That is the last point I want to make. When you vote for President, you aren't just chosing that man. You are also choosing his entire cabinet. How an you compare the team of Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfield, to the fairmindedness of people like John Edwards. I will again admit that there are better people than Kerry. But I also know that a lot of these good people will work with Kerry should he be elected. His cabinet is stronger and more fairminded, things that we have never seen from the Bush administration.

I am sorry to take you through this political ranting, but I agree that there is nothing more important that I can say as we move into the last 24 days before the election. Please, take my words to heart. Share them with your neighboors, friends and family. Ask questions, seek the truth of what I say, and most importantly think about the ramifications of what this election is. I would love to be able to have the consolation on November 2 of knowing that even if we lose in 4 years we can try again, without Bush, but the truth of the matter is, I honestly fear too much what the country will look like in 4 years should W get elected again. Please... take the time... talk to people... Make the right decision and help others to do so too.