28 Gays Later

Picture of the Day

I'm really enjoying the uncharacteristic brush-off the usual dingbats on the religious right are getting in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and Prop 8. For years, political leaders and polite society in general have felt like those who've stood in the way of progress in the name of adhering to the tenets of a 2,000-year-old book of fairy tales require a certain amount of respect and deference, but I get the impression that this is finally changing. That's not to say that our politicians will, at any time in the near future, completely abandon the faithful and their little delusions. But it goes to show that people like Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Bryan Fischer, Rick Perry and so on have so co-opted and codified what it means to believe in something spiritual that they've essentially created a product out of it -- and one whose image they've now ruined.

That's what makes it so easy to dismiss out of hand Mike Huckabee's laughably self-pitying quote from the Bible -- which of course assumes that he knows what the hell the supposed creator of the universe thinks -- and so much fun to watch Nancy Pelosi literally roll her eyes and not even bother to throw shade at Michele Bachmann because she just isn't worth the effort.

If you haven't seen this Pelosi response yet, it's sincerely one for the ages.

Quote of the Day

"When Martin Luther King Jr. called on the nation to 'live up to the meaning of its creed,' he heard an echo from a thousand pulpits. Treating black folks decently was consistent with what Christians had been taught. Dr. King was pushing against an open door. Priests and pastors marched for civil rights. Others preached for civil rights. But if the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors preaching not acceptance but principled rejection. Prelates could be declaring from pulpits everywhere that the triumph of gay rights is a defeat for God’s Country, and the new laws are immoral and need neither be respected nor obeyed."

-- Pat Buchanan, warning of possible civil disobedience by the religious and religious leaders if gay marriage becomes legal across the United States

This is exactly what I was talking about in the Daily Banter column on religion that I wrote over the weekend. A person's supposed right to adhere to the tenets of his or her faith -- which, if that person is a voter, often winds up being inflicted upon the rest of us -- is in no way equal to the right of living, breathing human beings to be treated the same. Or at least it shouldn't be equal. I don't care whether you feel discriminated against because the law is siding with what gay men and women want over what your imaginary friend wants, but reality should win in any case where it collides with faith.

Also, how much do you love Pat Buchanan pretending to give a shit about black people?

The Weeping Angels

Today's Daily Banter column looks at the collective freak-out the Christian right is having over gay marriage and how evangelicals and the like now want us to believe that they're the persecuted ones.

Here's the opening shot:

"It’s always entertaining to watch the right, particularly the Christian right, whine about victimization. As Steve Benen over at the Maddowblog says today, no one’s raised self-pity to a melodramatic art form the way America’s conservative Christians have, regardless of their particular political or denominational bent. To hear Pat Robertson, or William Donohue of the Catholic League, or Bill O’Reilly, or many, many others tell it, you’d think Christians were still being thrown to lions, maybe along the Capitol Mall, and a date with the cross awaited anybody who dared to slap a Jesus fish on the back of his car. If the Sodom-and-Gomorrah-esque anti-God dystopia Christians complain exists in American society really did exist, Tim Tebow would’ve been burned alive years ago rather than be allowed to become a guy who gets paid an obscene amount of money to be a shitty quarterback."

Read the Rest Here

Forever Hold Your Peace

Because it was late last night when I posted it and frankly I was too tired to link to it here, let's go ahead and do it now. Last night/today's column for the Daily Banter is all about gay marriage.

Here's the opening shot:

"I’ll make this quick and to the point.

I don’t know what decisions the Supreme Court will return regarding California’s Prop 8 and the national Defense of Marriage Act, but in the end it will hardly matter. Oh, sure, it will certainly matter in the short term because it will immediately affect the lives of millions of gay Americans, men and women looking for nothing more from our nation’s legal system than the same rights it affords their straight counterparts: the right to marry the ones they love. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8 and DOMA, legalized gay marriage across the United States — afforded the full faith and credit of the United States — may wind up being deferred to another date, very likely in the not-so-distant future. But make no mistake: gay marriage, as a legally accepted practice from coast to coast, is going to happen. It’s an inevitability, no matter how desperately those who want to cling to the past try to stop it."

Read the Rest Here

The Straight Dope

As promised, my latest piece for the Daily Banter deals with the conspiratorial freak-out from the right that you could've seen coming from a mile -- or at least a week -- away.

Here's the opening shot:

"Well, that didn’t take long.

Following a week that saw President Obama publicly throw his weight behind same-sex marriage — leading Newsweek to publish a for-shock-value-only cover declaring him 'The First Gay President' — his mortal enemies within the right-wing nutjob contingent are reacting exactly the way you’d expect."

Read the Rest Here

Quote of the Day

"Actually, while I’m not sure about the claims by the various people who have reported that Obama has at least participated at times with them in homosexual acts, this certainly lends some credence."

-- Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute on why President Obama might have publicly expressed support for gay marriage

I'll have more on it tomorrow in the Daily Banter, but I just had to get this little gem out there. Oh, and this is actually kind of the least insane thing he said on the subject of homosexuality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink myself into a coma.

Quote of the Month

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

-- President Barack Obama

Whether you believe this decision to be politically motivated doesn't really matter -- the bottom line is that it's historic, it carries significant risk for any sitting president up for reelection, and it affirms in no uncertain terms Obama's ongoing commitment to gay rights in this country.

Yesterday's blow struck against both basic civil rights and the march of progress by the scared-shitless yokels of North Carolina means almost nothing in the long run. As I've said many times here -- freedom expands. And no matter how many asinine laws are passed out of ignorance and prejudice, the genie is already out of the bottle and gay marriage will become a reality throughout the nation eventually.

It's only a matter of time -- and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Adding: Andrew Sullivan's take on this is, not surprisingly given the subject matter, especially lovely and powerful.

Adding Further: This. The president needs to draw the line between himself and his opponents in the Republican party as distinctly as possible right now. And by taking the stand he did, he couldn't have made the choice any clearer.

Let Freedom Ring

I really wish I had time to do a detailed write-up on the fantastic news that the state of New York has voted to allow gay marriage, since it deserves as much attention as it can get. The best I can do at the moment is bring back a quick excerpt from a piece I wrote in late 2008 when the forces aligned against equality for all won a somewhat reprehensible and underhanded -- and I believed at the time, short-lived -- victory by passing Prop 8 in California, essentially overturning the legalization of gay marriage in that state. At the time, I wrote about a very good friend of mine named Omar, and how he, like everyone else in this country, deserved to be able to marry whomever he choses -- this, despite the fact that he's gay.

Here's what I said:

"There should be no doubt that eventually we'll look back on this disgraceful moment in our history the way we now regard segregation, pre-suffrage, or the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II: with shame, sadness, and a host of unanswerable questions as to what we might possibly have been thinking. We know this because, as much as those who stand against it will hate to hear this, legal gay marriage in the United States is an inevitability. We know this because of the basic nature of freedom: it expands.

Freedom expands.

It will not be contained -- and it most certainly will not be restricted once it's already been allowed to flourish. Isn't this the very principle that's guided our occasionally awkward foreign policy for years? Are we so blind or so unforgivably hypocritical that we can't recognize when the truth of that ideal is staring us right in the face?

The genie is out of the bottle.

There's no putting it back in, and it was inexcusable that we sought to restrain it in the first place. That's not what this country is about.

My friend Omar, like all Americans, should have the right to marry anyone he wants -- to live his life however he chooses.

And not you, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to take those rights away from him."

Make no mistake: New York is likely the largest domino yet to fall when it comes to the inevitable legalization of gay marriage nationwide. And that's a very, very good thing.

Let Freedom Ring

I'm busy as hell right now (although the extended piece that I promised a couple of days ago is proceeding somewhat on schedule) so I wanted to bring back two posts that I've rerun as a single piece once before. They've always sort of summed up my feelings about Prop 8 and gay marriage in general and it makes sense to let them speak for themselves now that Prop 8 has been overturned in California.

"Let No One Put Asunder" (Originally Published, 12.21.08)

It's rare that something angers me so profoundly that I spend a good portion of the quality weekend time I have with my family letting it get under my skin.

This is one of those times, unfortunately.

I never believed the passage of California's Prop 8 -- which overturned the legalization of gay marriage in that state -- to be a product of hate. Ignorance, yes. Fear, definitely. Stupidity, absolutely -- but not, for most of its supporters, an out-and-out hatred of gay people. There's no doubt that, in the classic "hate the sin, love the sinner" vein, many opponents of gay marriage hold what they perceive to be the homosexual lifestyle (and the nagging fear that it will somehow encroach upon their clean, bucolic suburban existences) in greater contempt than any one gay person. This distinction, I'd imagine, provides little comfort for the 900-thousand or so gay and lesbian men and women living in California who've just been told by their neighbors that they're second class citizens -- but it still doesn't make the passing of Prop 8 proof that millions of people despise homosexuals.

Which doesn't mean that there isn't a small and very vocal contingent among Prop 8's supporters -- including the sponsors of the initial bill -- that does openly despise gay culture and what it believes gay people represent.

They consider homosexuality to be evil in every sense and will fight tooth and nail to eradicate it (which only proves the ridiculous folly of their belief system, since you can't "fix" gay and you damn sure can't make it go away).

These are the people who are now one-upping the ban that's already been imposed on any future gay weddings in California.

They want to not only ensure that no more same-sex couples marry -- they want to retroactively nullify the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who were married during the few months that it was legal to do so in the state of California. The imaginatively-monikered "Yes on 8" campaign has now filed a brief arguing that because the new law states that only a marriage between a man and a woman can be recognized in California, any gay marriage is automatically invalid. The wording of Prop 8 never expressly outlined what would happen to the unions of those couples who'd already tied the knot, but if you couldn't see this draconian push to thoroughly extinguish the concept of gay marriage coming from a mile away, you're so naive that stepping outside your front door for any reason would likely be hazardous to your health.

These fanatics -- and that's exactly what they are -- don't simply disagree with the idea of same-sex couples marrying, they consider it a sinful blight on humanity and something that would put our society one step closer to being smitten, wholesale, by a vengeful God.

And who's heading up the court battle for the intolerant extremists looking to abolish gay marriage in its entirety?

Ken Starr.

Yes, that Ken Starr. The ultra-conservative and ethically-challenged legal attack dog who dubiously spent several years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Bill Clinton back in the 90s -- the far-right butt-boy who issued the infamous "Starr Report" which purposely, pruriently read more like soft-core porn than a legal document. Starr's now the dean of the law department at Pepperdine University in Malibu (side note: don't go to law school at Pepperdine) and obviously is the perfect choice to pick up the long, hard spear, wrap both hands around its shaft and lead the charge to wipe gay marriage off the map in California. With Starr at the helm of the operation, you know exactly what you're getting, why you're getting it and the kinds of people behind the whole thing.

Opponents of the move, meanwhile -- who argue that it's unconstitutional and outright wrong to attempt to apply Prop 8 retroactively -- are scheduled to file their own brief tomorrow. It would be wonderful to believe that the opponents of this reprehensible effort will be successful, but they have yet to even slow the offensive that's been steamrolling over them the past few months.

There's no denying, however, that their cause is just. Their cause is, ironically, righteous. It always should've turned the stomachs of decent, freedom-loving Americans that there were those in our ranks who stood violently against the idea of an entire swath of the population being granted the right to marry the person of his or her choosing. It really should've provoked outrage that a group of our citizens had been granted a civil right only to have it put to a vote and subsequently revoked. The fact that the above has been allowed to occur, and now, to add the worst kind of insult to injury, those for whom the concept of such a right is nothing less than sacrilege seek to pull an end-run on the law and abrogate the contract of those who availed themselves of that right when it was legal -- well, that's just fucking despicable.

When federal Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the bootleggers and speakeasy proprietors arrested during the 13 years that alcohol was illegal in America weren't automatically freed from prisons, en masse. This is because if you engage in an illegal act, the eventual legalization of that act doesn't instantly absolve you in the eyes of the law. You did it while it was illegal, you broke the law.

That's the way it works.

Unless, apparently, you're talking about same-sex marriages.

Then, in a slap-in-the-face double-standard, you're expected to accept that the legal, ostensibly binding commitment you made in good faith can be subject to any future changes the state feels like implementing. Basically, your marriage -- the most important contract you enter into -- can be "grandfathered" to death.

To call it unfair would be a laughable understatement.

It's wrong. Period.

Just fucking wrong.


Follow Up


There's a guy I know named Omar who's been one of my best friends since we were both around 16.

He's been beside me through some of the worst times in my life, providing a kind of unwavering moral support and unconditional love that really can't be done justice with something as mundane as a well-placed word or two. He's more like a brother to me than a friend and I, quite honestly, would go to the ends of the earth for him if he required it. We've always championed each other and I have no doubt that we always will. Our friendship is one of the most important, and certainly the most enduring, things in each of our lives.

If Omar called me tomorrow morning and told me that he'd found somebody he wanted to share the rest of his life with and was planning to get married, I'd congratulate him, send a big hug his way, and ask him where he wanted me to be and when he wanted me to be there. There's no way in hell I'd miss his wedding.

The thing is, I don't have to worry about that.

That's because Omar can't get married -- at least not officially -- because he's gay.

Last week, while America was celebrating what feels, even now, like a rebirth and a restatement of purpose in the wake of the election that will put Barack Obama in the White House, millions in California were reeling from an election day shock -- a decision at the polls that inexplicably aims to undo a very real "march of freedom" within this country and cement the status of gay Americans as second-class citizens.

California's Proposition 8 was unlike anything I'd seen in my lifetime: a clever end-run around the law which attempted to actually take away the rights of a specific segment of the population -- rights that had previously been granted by the California Supreme Court. It was anathema to everything America purports to stand for -- justice and equality for all, without exception -- and yet it passed handily and did so in one of the most progressive states in the country.

It was, it is, a national embarrassment -- and one that never should've been allowed to happen in the first place.

It's true we live in a democracy and that each of us has a say in determining our leaders and the manner in which they govern, but there are some decisions that should be beyond the whim of the electorate -- out of reach of the most ignorant, timid or demagogic within our ranks. There's a reason our court system is charged with interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its tenets: We pay those entrusted with this awesome responsibility to be a little wiser than the rest of us -- to literally lay down the law when no one else can, or will.

Some things aren't up for debate in this country.

Our fundamental freedoms cannot be put to a vote.

Not here -- not in America.

There should be no doubt that eventually we'll look back on this disgraceful moment in our history the way we now regard segregation, pre-suffrage, or the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II: with shame, sadness, and a host of unanswerable questions as to what we might possibly have been thinking. We know this because, as much as those who stand against it will hate to hear this, legal gay marriage in the United States is an inevitability. We know this because of the basic nature of freedom: it expands.

Freedom expands.

It will not be contained -- and it most certainly will not be restricted once it's already been allowed to flourish. Isn't this the very principle that's guided our foreign policy for years? Are we so blind or so unforgivably hypocritical that we can't recognize when the truth of that ideal is staring us right in the face?

The genie is out of the bottle.

There's no putting it back in, and it was inexcusable that we sought to restrain it in the first place. That's not what this country is about.

My friend Omar, like all Americans, should have the right to marry anyone he wants -- to live his life however he chooses.

And not you, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to take those rights away from him.

Bonus Quote of the Day

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

-- California 9th Circuit Judge Vaughn Walker in a ruling that overturns Prop 8, which bans gay marriage

Bonus Quote of the Day

"The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.' The Bible is pretty black and white... I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

-- 23-year-old Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley

And here we go again.

By the way, the quote was given to a regular column on Fox News's website called "Pop Tarts."

(Update: But enough of that kind of talk. Let's be juvenile and just make fun of the fact that she's really unattractive for a beauty pageant winner.)

Tuesday Wednesday is Recycling Day

Sorry, kids, but I'm a little busy today. I realize that it's State of the Union night and of course the day when Steve Jobs will once again unleash his special brand of techno-witchcraft on America's slavish hipster population vis-a-vis the Apple Tablet (true item: the Apple Tablet will "jerk you off, collect the product, and use it as a power source"), but there's not much I can do about any of that right now. Instead, at least for the moment, I'm bringing back a piece from December of 2008 that focused on Proposition 8, mostly because the Prop 8 trial in California looks like it's going to end the way it started -- really nastily. I should be back in action later today.

"Let No One Put Asunder" (Originally Published, 12.21.08)

It's rare that something angers me so profoundly that I spend a good portion of the quality weekend time I have with my family letting it get under my skin.

This is one of those times, unfortunately.

I never believed the passage of California's Prop 8 -- which overturned the legalization of gay marriage in that state -- to be a product of hate. Ignorance, yes. Fear, definitely. Stupidity, absolutely -- but not, for most of its supporters, an out-and-out hatred of gay people. There's no doubt that, in the classic "hate the sin, love the sinner" vein, many opponents of gay marriage hold what they perceive to be the homosexual lifestyle (and the nagging fear that it will somehow encroach upon their clean, bucolic suburban existences) in greater contempt than any one gay person. This distinction, I'd imagine, provides little comfort for the 900-thousand or so gay and lesbian men and women living in California who've just been told by their neighbors that they're second class citizens -- but it still doesn't make the passing of Prop 8 proof that millions of people despise homosexuals.

Which doesn't mean that there isn't a small and very vocal contingent among Prop 8's supporters -- including the sponsors of the initial bill -- that does openly despise gay culture and what it believes gay people represent.

They consider homosexuality to be evil in every sense and will fight tooth and nail to eradicate it (which only proves the ridiculous folly of their belief system, since you can't "fix" gay and you damn sure can't make it go away).

These are the people who are now one-upping the ban that's already been imposed on any future gay weddings in California.

They want to not only ensure that no more same-sex couples marry -- they want to retroactively nullify the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who were married during the few months that it was legal to do so in the state of California. The imaginatively-monikered "Yes on 8" campaign has now filed a brief arguing that because the new law states that only a marriage between a man and a woman can be recognized in California, any gay marriage is automatically invalid. The wording of Prop 8 never expressly outlined what would happen to the unions of those couples who'd already tied the knot, but if you couldn't see this draconian push to thoroughly extinguish the concept of gay marriage coming from a mile away, you're so naive that stepping outside your front door for any reason would likely be hazardous to your health.

These fanatics -- and that's exactly what they are -- don't simply disagree with the idea of same-sex couples marrying, they consider it a sinful blight on humanity and something that would put our society one step closer to being smitten, wholesale, by a vengeful God.

And who's heading up the court battle for the intolerant extremists looking to abolish gay marriage in its entirety?

Ken Starr.

Yes, that Ken Starr. The ultra-conservative and ethically-challenged legal attack dog who dubiously spent several years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Bill Clinton back in the 90s -- the far-right butt-boy who issued the infamous "Starr Report" which purposely, pruriently read more like soft-core porn than a legal document. Starr's now the dean of the law department at Pepperdine University in Malibu (side note: don't go to law school at Pepperdine) and obviously is the perfect choice to pick up the long, hard spear, wrap both hands around its shaft and lead the charge to wipe gay marriage off the map in California. With Starr at the helm of the operation, you know exactly what you're getting, why you're getting it and the kinds of people behind the whole thing.

Opponents of the move, meanwhile -- who argue that it's unconstitutional and outright wrong to attempt to apply Prop 8 retroactively -- are scheduled to file their own brief tomorrow. It would be wonderful to believe that the opponents of this reprehensible effort will be successful, but they have yet to even slow the offensive that's been steamrolling over them the past few months.

There's no denying, however, that their cause is just. Their cause is, ironically, righteous. It always should've turned the stomachs of decent, freedom-loving Americans that there were those in our ranks who stood violently against the idea of an entire swath of the population being granted the right to marry the person of his or her choosing. It really should've provoked outrage that a group of our citizens had been granted a civil right only to have it put to a vote and subsequently revoked. The fact that the above has been allowed to occur, and now, to add the worst kind of insult to injury, those for whom the concept of such a right is nothing less than sacrilege seek to pull an end-run on the law and abrogate the contract of those who availed themselves of that right when it was legal -- well, that's just fucking despicable.

When federal Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the bootleggers and speakeasy proprietors arrested during the 13 years that alcohol was illegal in America weren't automatically freed from prisons, en masse. This is because if you engage in an illegal act, the eventual legalization of that act doesn't instantly absolve you in the eyes of the law. You did it while it was illegal, you broke the law.

That's the way it works.

Unless, apparently, you're talking about same-sex marriages.

Then, in a slap-in-the-face double-standard, you're expected to accept that the legal, ostensibly binding commitment you made in good faith can be subject to any future changes the state feels like implementing. Basically, your marriage -- the most important contract you enter into -- can be "grandfathered" to death.

To call it unfair would be a laughable understatement.

It's wrong. Period.

Just fucking wrong.


What follows is a related piece published here last month. It was written in response to the initial passage of Prop 8.


There's a guy I know named Omar who's been one of my best friends since we were both around 16.

He's been beside me through some of the worst times in my life, providing a kind of unwavering moral support and unconditional love that really can't be done justice with something as mundane as a well-placed word or two. He's more like a brother to me than a friend and I, quite honestly, would go to the ends of the earth for him if he required it. We've always championed each other and I have no doubt that we always will. Our friendship is one of the most important, and certainly the most enduring, things in each of our lives.

If Omar called me tomorrow morning and told me that he'd found somebody he wanted to share the rest of his life with and was planning to get married, I'd congratulate him, send a big hug his way, and ask him where he wanted me to be and when he wanted me to be there. There's no way in hell I'd miss his wedding.

The thing is, I don't have to worry about that.

That's because Omar can't get married -- at least not officially -- because he's gay.

Last week, while America was celebrating what feels, even now, like a rebirth and a restatement of purpose in the wake of the election that will put Barack Obama in the White House, millions in California were reeling from an election day shock -- a decision at the polls that inexplicably aims to undo a very real "march of freedom" within this country and cement the status of gay Americans as second-class citizens.

California's Proposition 8 was unlike anything I'd seen in my lifetime: a clever end-run around the law which attempted to actually take away the rights of a specific segment of the population -- rights that had previously been granted by the California Supreme Court. It was anathema to everything America purports to stand for -- justice and equality for all, without exception -- and yet it passed handily and did so in one of the most progressive states in the country.

It was, it is, a national embarrassment -- and one that never should've been allowed to happen in the first place.

It's true we live in a democracy and that each of us has a say in determining our leaders and the manner in which they govern, but there are some decisions that should be beyond the whim of the electorate -- out of reach of the most ignorant, timid or demagogic within our ranks. There's a reason our court system is charged with interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its tenets: We pay those entrusted with this awesome responsibility to be a little wiser than the rest of us -- to literally lay down the law when no one else can, or will.

Some things aren't up for debate in this country.

Our fundamental freedoms cannot be put to a vote.

Not here -- not in America.

There should be no doubt that eventually we'll look back on this disgraceful moment in our history the way we now regard segregation, pre-suffrage, or the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II: with shame, sadness, and a host of unanswerable questions as to what we might possibly have been thinking. We know this because, as much as those who stand against it will hate to hear this, legal gay marriage in the United States is an inevitability. We know this because of the basic nature of freedom: it expands.

Freedom expands.

It will not be contained -- and it most certainly will not be restricted once it's already been allowed to flourish. Isn't this the very principle that's guided our foreign policy for years? Are we so blind or so unforgivably hypocritical that we can't recognize when the truth of that ideal is staring us right in the face?

The genie is out of the bottle.

There's no putting it back in, and it was inexcusable that we sought to restrain it in the first place. That's not what this country is about.

My friend Omar, like all Americans, should have the right to marry anyone he wants -- to live his life however he chooses.

And not you, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to take those rights away from him.

Warren Piece

I really hate to pick on NBC three times and religion twice in 24 hours (oh, who am I kidding?) but I thought this little tidbit from Mediaite was pretty entertaining:

"Ah, to be Rev. Rick Warren on a 'very special' Thanksgiving 'Meet the Press.' Despite being connected to a Ugandan minister who supports the death penalty for gays, you don’t get asked about it... and you aren’t pressed to explain your 'I’m not a politician' position while calling abortion a 'holocaust' and discussing your public position in opposing same-sex marriage in California.


The most heated questioning -- if you could call it that -- came when David Gregory asked Warren to explain his role in supporting Proposition 8 in California, which outlawed same-sex marriage."

And was a big controversy, oh, a year ago.

In Gregory's defense, I think he thought he was talking to Chuck Todd.

A Boy and His Cause

In case you haven't heard, there's a 10-year-old kid in Arkansas who's refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance at school because he believes that there isn't, in fact, "liberty and justice for all." Will Phillips -- remember, ten -- is spending his youth apparently stressing over the fact that gays and lesbians in this country aren't allowed to marry across-the-board and are, as far as he's concerned, generally treated like second-class citizens.

Needless to say, this kid's a fucking teenage ulcer waiting to happen since he's already taking the weight of the world's injustices on his shoulders. But the story's interesting for a couple of reasons.

Whenever a child voices a staunch opinion on a politically controversial topic, I always make the natural assumption that he or she is simply parroting the viewpoint of his or her parents. This makes the most sense. At the age of ten, if it didn't have to do with Star Wars I didn't understand it, and I tended to model much of my social behavior after the people I looked up to the most at the time: my mother and father. But watching an interview with Will Phillips I get the impression that he really does believe the very adult views he's not only espousing but taking a public stand on. Still, is there some cut-off point where a child needs to be taught that he or she may not be able to process all the nuances of a subject and therefore any opinion or defiance is essentially meaningless? In other words, can a ten-year-old really know what the hell he or she is talking about when it comes to gay rights?

Another thing that has to be considered: How would the left, which of course is largely embracing this kid and defending his right not to pledge allegiance (not really a huge deal anyway since saying the Pledge has always been voluntary) still be standing behind him if, say, he said that he was doing it to protest the lack of prayer in public schools?

Regardless, there's no denying that Will Phillips is very smart. I can't help but wonder what he'd be like -- how articulate and analytical he'd be -- if he and his parents were the kind of people going on TV to say that they weren't getting behind the flag until gays are denied their rights.

Am I stereotyping? Probably.

But watch the interview with this kid and his father.

And then click the link below that and read the reaction to this story on the far-right website "Free Republic." And remember, the person they're talking about -- sometimes viciously castigating -- is a ten-year-old boy.

The Huffington Post: 10-Year-Old Won't Pledge Allegiance To a Country That Discriminates Against Gays/11.16.09

Free Republic: CNN Features Boy Who Won't Say Pledge Till Gays Have Equal Rights: Comments

Californication

Christian?

Sort of.

Opportunist?

Definitely.

Hypocrite?

Obviously.

Surprising?

Not in the least.

MSNBC: Miss California: I'll Fight on Despite Release of Topless Photos, May Be Disqualified from Pageant/5.5.09

NOM de Douche

Stephen Colbert shows the laughably dumb National Organization for Marriage ad the respect it deserves.

Queer Aye

I mentioned this a while ago and it seems worth repeating, given recent developments in Iowa and now Vermont: It's too late for opponents of gay marriage; they've already lost.

The genie is out of the bottle, he's fabulously dressed, and there's no putting him back in.

The New York Times: Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal/4.7.09

Behind the Chenille Curtain

I love old '50s propaganda films; I used to rent collections of them by the handful back when I lived in L.A.

That's why I love everything about this little clip, put together by the good folks at 23/6.

Let No One Put Asunder

It's rare that something angers me so profoundly that I spend a good portion of the quality weekend time I have with my family letting it get under my skin.

This is one of those times, unfortunately.

I never believed the passage of California's Prop 8 -- which overturned the legalization of gay marriage in that state -- to be a product of hate. Ignorance, yes. Fear, definitely. Stupidity, absolutely -- but not, for most of its supporters, an out-and-out hatred of gay people. There's no doubt that, in the classic "hate the sin, love the sinner" vein, many opponents of gay marriage hold what they perceive to be the homosexual lifestyle (and the nagging fear that it will somehow encroach upon their clean, bucolic suburban existences) in greater contempt than any one gay person. This distinction, I'd imagine, provides little comfort for the 900-thousand or so gay and lesbian men and women living in California who've just been told by their neighbors that they're second class citizens -- but it still doesn't make the passing of Prop 8 proof that millions of people despise homosexuals.

Which doesn't mean that there isn't a small and very vocal contingent among Prop 8's supporters -- including the sponsors of the initial bill -- that does openly despise gay culture and what it believes gay people represent.

They consider homosexuality to be evil in every sense and will fight tooth and nail to eradicate it (which only proves the ridiculous folly of their belief system, since you can't "fix" gay and you damn sure can't make it go away).

These are the people who are now one-upping the ban that's already been imposed on any future gay weddings in California.

They want to not only ensure that no more same-sex couples marry -- they want to retroactively nullify the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who were married during the few months that it was legal to do so in the state of California. The imaginatively-monikered "Yes on 8" campaign has now filed a brief arguing that because the new law states that only a marriage between a man and a woman can be recognized in California, any gay marriage is automatically invalid. The wording of Prop 8 never expressly outlined what would happen to the unions of those couples who'd already tied the knot, but if you couldn't see this draconian push to thoroughly extinguish the concept of gay marriage coming from a mile away, you're so naive that stepping outside your front door for any reason would likely be hazardous to your health.

These fanatics -- and that's exactly what they are -- don't simply disagree with the idea of same-sex couples marrying, they consider it a sinful blight on humanity and something that would put our society one step closer to being smitten, wholesale, by a vengeful God.

And who's heading up the court battle for the intolerant extremists looking to abolish gay marriage in its entirety?

Ken Starr.

Yes, that Ken Starr. The ultra-conservative and ethically-challenged legal attack dog who dubiously spent several years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Bill Clinton back in the 90s -- the far-right butt-boy who issued the infamous "Starr Report" which purposely, pruriently read more like soft-core porn than a legal document. Starr's now the dean of the law department at Pepperdine University in Malibu (side note: don't go to law school at Pepperdine) and obviously is the perfect choice to pick up the long, hard spear, wrap both hands around its shaft and lead the charge to wipe gay marriage off the map in California. With Starr at the helm of the operation, you know exactly what you're getting, why you're getting it and the kinds of people behind the whole thing.

Opponents of the move, meanwhile -- who argue that it's unconstitutional and outright wrong to attempt to apply Prop 8 retroactively -- are scheduled to file their own brief tomorrow. It would be wonderful to believe that the opponents of this reprehensible effort will be successful, but they have yet to even slow the offensive that's been steamrolling over them the past few months.

There's no denying, however, that their cause is just. Their cause is, ironically, righteous. It always should've turned the stomachs of decent, freedom-loving Americans that there were those in our ranks who stood violently against the idea of an entire swath of the population being granted the right to marry the person of his or her choosing. It really should've provoked outrage that a group of our citizens had been granted a civil right only to have it put to a vote and subsequently revoked. The fact that the above has been allowed to occur, and now, to add the worst kind of insult to injury, those for whom the concept of such a right is nothing less than sacrilege seek to pull an end-run on the law and abrogate the contract of those who availed themselves of that right when it was legal -- well, that's just fucking despicable.

When federal Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the bootleggers and speakeasy proprietors arrested during the 13 years that alcohol was illegal in America weren't automatically freed from prisons, en masse. This is because if you engage in an illegal act, the eventual legalization of that act doesn't instantly absolve you in the eyes of the law. You did it while it was illegal, you broke the law.

That's the way it works.

Unless, apparently, you're talking about same-sex marriages.

Then, in a slap-in-the-face double-standard, you're expected to accept that the legal, ostensibly binding commitment you made in good faith can be subject to any future changes the state feels like implementing. Basically, your marriage -- the most important contract you enter into -- can be "grandfathered" to death.

To call it unfair would be a laughable understatement.

It's wrong. Period.

Just fucking wrong.


What follows is a related piece published here last month. It was written in response to the initial passage of Prop 8.


There's a guy I know named Omar who's been one of my best friends since we were both around 16.

He's been beside me through some of the worst times in my life, providing a kind of unwavering moral support and unconditional love that really can't be done justice with something as mundane as a well-placed word or two. He's more like a brother to me than a friend and I, quite honestly, would go to the ends of the earth for him if he required it. We've always championed each other and I have no doubt that we always will. Our friendship is one of the most important, and certainly the most enduring, things in each of our lives.

If Omar called me tomorrow morning and told me that he'd found somebody he wanted to share the rest of his life with and was planning to get married, I'd congratulate him, send a big hug his way, and ask him where he wanted me to be and when he wanted me to be there. There's no way in hell I'd miss his wedding.

The thing is, I don't have to worry about that.

That's because Omar can't get married -- at least not officially -- because he's gay.

Last week, while America was celebrating what feels, even now, like a rebirth and a restatement of purpose in the wake of the election that will put Barack Obama in the White House, millions in California were reeling from an election day shock -- a decision at the polls that inexplicably aims to undo a very real "march of freedom" within this country and cement the status of gay Americans as second-class citizens.

California's Proposition 8 was unlike anything I'd seen in my lifetime: a clever end-run around the law which attempted to actually take away the rights of a specific segment of the population -- rights that had previously been granted by the California Supreme Court. It was anathema to everything America purports to stand for -- justice and equality for all, without exception -- and yet it passed handily and did so in one of the most progressive states in the country.

It was, it is, a national embarrassment -- and one that never should've been allowed to happen in the first place.

It's true we live in a democracy and that each of us has a say in determining our leaders and the manner in which they govern, but there are some decisions that should be beyond the whim of the electorate -- out of reach of the most ignorant, timid or demagogic within our ranks. There's a reason our court system is charged with interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its tenets: We pay those entrusted with this awesome responsibility to be a little wiser than the rest of us -- to literally lay down the law when no one else can, or will.

Some things aren't up for debate in this country.

Our fundamental freedoms cannot be put to a vote.

Not here -- not in America.

There should be no doubt that eventually we'll look back on this disgraceful moment in our history the way we now regard segregation, pre-suffrage, or the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II: with shame, sadness, and a host of unanswerable questions as to what we might possibly have been thinking. We know this because, as much as those who stand against it will hate to hear this, legal gay marriage in the United States is an inevitability. We know this because of the basic nature of freedom: it expands.

Freedom expands.

It will not be contained -- and it most certainly will not be restricted once it's already been allowed to flourish. Isn't this the very principle that's guided our foreign policy for years? Are we so blind or so unforgivably hypocritical that we can't recognize when the truth of that ideal is staring us right in the face?

The genie is out of the bottle.

There's no putting it back in, and it was inexcusable that we sought to restrain it in the first place. That's not what this country is about.

My friend Omar, like all Americans, should have the right to marry anyone he wants -- to live his life however he chooses.

And not you, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to take those rights away from him.