Wednesday, December 24, 2008

439 Days

I've always wondered where people my age belonged in the generational hierarchy. To my knowledge, we've never had a societal nickname, like the ubiquitous Baby Boomers or the "cool kids" of Generation X, and I guess no one gave us much thought, til one of our own (Barack Obama) was elected to Highest Office In The Land. Now we are semi-quasi-officially called Cuspers (a.k.a. Generation Jones or Generation Obama).

So, just like everyone else, we get a label, too (A label??? Wait. Why I am happy about this again???)!!

In defense of the "labelists", though, the link to the CNN article referenced above, in elaborating on the phenom known as Cuspers, contains at least two paragraphs that describe me pretty accurately:

Whether we call them cuspers, Generation Jones or Generation Obama, there are enigmas and paradoxes within this generation and its fans. They respond to Biblical imagery, but they're not dogmatic in their faith.

They value traditional notions of family but see men and women as equals in parenting. They go back to older American values -- civility, community, responsibility -- yet keenly embrace technology and use the Internet naturally.

As an aside, being that Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 and I was born October 17, 1962, our next Prez is exactly 439 days (which is 1 year, 2 months & 13 days) older than I am.

Finally, there IS a name for what I am...well, at least a name for ONE of the things I am, anyway.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Traditional Marriage???

Next time someone tells you how important “traditional marriage” is & how important it is to protect it from people like me, remind them of the history of their sacred institution. Found this on a website called On The Journey.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

And I say to myself, "What A Wonderful World..."

The colors of the rainbow,
so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people going by
I see friends shakin' hands,
sayin' "How do you do?"
They're really saying, "I love you"
"What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong

The New York Times reports that for the first time in United Nations history, a declaration in support of gay rights was introduced in the U.N.’s General Assembly.

According to the Times article, the resolution, which condemned human rights violations based on homophobia, saying such measures run counter to the universal declaration of human rights, had the support of 66 of the member nations, including much of Europe and Latin America.

Such a “radical” statement, right??

Can you guess who opposed this non-binding resolution?

Well, if you guessed, the Roman Catholic Church’s UN representative, Russia, China, and the Islamic Conference, you’d be almost-completely correct. Of course, you can’t forget the George Bush’s version of the Good Ol’ U.S. of A.

According to the Times report:
The official American position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like “without distinction of any kind,” was too broad because it might be interpreted as an attempt by the federal government to override states’ rights on issues like gay marriage, American diplomats and legal experts said.
So, states’ rights are vitally important when a non-binding statement of basic human rights is the issue, but if we’re talking about an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outright appropriates those self-same states’ rights (i.e., the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment") for the all-powerful Big Brother, then those rights--like those of GLBTQI people--are quite expendable.

Hypocrisy much??

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

One of the newer sites on the World Wide Web is, which is being used at the official website of the "Office of the President Elect". On this website, our next President solicits ideas from everyday folks like you & me. On the site's first page, they encourage each of us to tell our own stories & make suggestions on how our government can be more user-friendly:
Your stories and your ideas can help change the future of the the country. When we come together around a common purpose, great things are possible.
Of course, being me, I was just curious if the new administration was going to not only acknowledge the existence of the GLBT community, but speak to the issues that matter to us & other equality-minder people, and, I was pleasantly not surprised!

In the Civil Rights part of the website, President-Elect Obama mentions issues several time that directly involve GLBT he wasn't afraid to acknowledge we're here & that, as citizens of the U.S. of A. we, too, are yearning to breathe free!

So, check out The Obama/Biden Civil Rights Agenda

Combat Employment Discrimination: Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act, to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.

Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

A Breath of "Fresh Air"

On The Advocate's website, it is being reported a prominent member of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Richard Cizik, has resigned from the organization after announcing his support of civil unions for same-sex couples.

It's worth noting that in it's May 12, 2008 issue, Time magazine called Cizik one of The World’s Most Influential People .

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Don't Tell Me Who To Love (Part 2)

The Ray Boltz song, Don’t Tell Me Who To Love, the video in the previous post, starts with this historical reference:

The year was 1966 and they were wearing their wedding bands.
She was black and he was white and some people didn’t understand.
The judge said that’s not legal, the preacher called it a sin,
But they couldn’t stop them cause he loved her and she loved him

Not only is this a beautiful & touching song, it’s also a lyrical re-telling of actual events, to wit:

In 1958, Virginia residents, Mildred Jeter & Richard Loving left the state of their residence, which prohibited interracial marriages, and were married in Washington, DC. After they were married they came back to their home state.

As unbelievable as it may sound, once the Lovings came back to Virginia a group of local policeman entered their home hoping to find them engaged in a sexual act! Although they had a valid marriage license issued to them by the District of Columbia & had even posted on the wall in their home, they were both arrested, and the marriage certificate was used as evidence against them! In January 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to “miscegenation” (the name of the so-called crime back then of interracial marriage), which was, in many states, a felony. In Virginia, it was punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Having pleaded guilty, the "kindly" judge told them that he would suspend the one year prison sentence for up to 25 years if they would leave Virginia altogether. In 1963, the couple moved to Washington, DC. There the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on behalf of the Lovings to vacate (overturn) the judge’s ruling, and to invalidate the state law under which they were prosecuted.

It took 4 more years before the case was heard in the Highest Court in the Land, but on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in case 388 U.S. 1, more commonly known as Loving vs. Virginia, unanimously ruled that the Lovings were improperly prosecuted & had been deprived of their 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection, therefore, reversing their conviction.

In striking down the Virginia law, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
I am sure that there were people back then who absolutely hated this Supreme Court decision & who fought tooth & nail to keep interracial marriage from becoming reality. These racial purists no doubt lamented “activist judges”, the same as the anti-gay activists do today. What those folks didn’t get back then & what those today who oppose my equality even now don’t get is that, fragile as it can be sometimes, you can’t stop a heart from doing what hearts do: Love. You can preach against it 'til you’re blue in the face & you can make laws designed to hamper it & to even try to kill it, but love is not ethereal & it outlasts all else. Jesus’s greatest commandment was that we love one another as He loves us. His people should no more be about denying love than they should be about denying Him.

I’ve said it before, but I really do believe that our opponents—those who want to deny me a legally-recognized family—truly have no idea who & what they’re fighting. This isn’t just some political issue to me, THIS IS MY LIFE. Nothing in the temporal realm could possibly mean more to me. They can whip up fear & scream their lies until our Lord finally comes to take us home, but—-if I have anything to say about it--they will never know one moment’s peace in their Spiritual War Without End as long as they keep insisting that I am undeserving of the right that they so often take for granted: to have their government recognize & honor their decision to make a legal bond with the person whom they love.

Tragically, Richard Loving died in a car accident in 1975, but Mildred, his wife, in 2007, in celebration of the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia prepared a statement about the historic court case which bears her name & the cause for which she fought.

In the last paragraphs of her statement, Mrs. Loving lovingly wrote:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Mildred Loving died less than a year later, on May 2, 2008, but the cause for which she & her husband so bravely fought still burns in the hearts of those of us who never even knew them. Times & laws & even people may change, but love is always love; that's why I truly have no doubt that, as the last line in Ray's song goes, " is gonna make it in the end."

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Don't Tell Me Who To Love

A gift from my friend, Jeff, sung by Ray Boltz...

SONG LYRICS: “Don’t Tell Me Who To Love”

written by Ray Boltz (c) 2008 Shepherd Boy Music/ASCAP


The year was 1966 and they were wearing their wedding bands

She was black and he was white and some people didn’t understand

The judge said that’s not legal, the preacher called it a sin

But they couldn’t stop them cause he loved her and she loved him


Don’t tell me who to love, don’t tell me who to kiss

Don’t tell me that there’s something wrong because I feel like this

I know what’s in my heart, that should be enough

Don’t tell me, don’t tell me no, don’t tell me who to love


Maybe you’re in love today and you’ve been making wedding plans

But there is someone in your way shouting things cause they don’t understand

The judge says that’s not legal, the preacher calls it a sin

Oh you just remember they were wrong before and they’re wrong again



Now there always will be hatred and voices that condemn

Oh but I believe that true love is gonna make it in the end


Saturday, December 6, 2008

Keith Olbermann: Person of the Year

People of the Year Extended: Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann has long been a reliable ally of LGBT people, but the host of MSNBC’s Countdown became a full-fledged hero with his November 10 Special Comment passionately denouncing California voters’ passage of Prop. 8. Olbermann sat down for an extended interview with The Advocate to talk about his commitment to equal rights, working with Rachel Maddow, and that impersonation by Ben Affleck.

By Trudy Ring

An exclusive posted December 5, 2008

Keith Olbermann has long been a reliable ally of LGBT people, but the host of MSNBC’s Countdown became a full-fledged hero with his November 10 Special Comment passionately denouncing California voters’ passage of Proposition 8, which amended the state’s constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage rights. “This vote is horrible,” he said. He told Prop. 8 proponents that gay couples simply “want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world” and asked them, “What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?”

The commentary made Olbermann one of The Advocate’s People of the Year for 2008. Here, Olbermann -- who also cohosts Football Night in America, the pregame show for NBC’s Sunday Night Football -- discusses the motivation for the comment, the possibility of a major team-sport athlete coming out, his role in Rachel Maddow's career, life after Bush, and that impersonation by Ben Affleck. You have been a great ally to gay people for a long time, but people feel you really hit it out of the park with your Special Comment about California’s Proposition 8. Where did your passion about this issue come from?
Keith Olbermann: Well, that’s like saying where does the intention to breathe come from. What happened in California does not make any sense on any level. That people would so misunderstand their obligations to each other... it’s hurtful, wasteful, stupid, and hypocritical. This is like saying one group of people is not allowed to buy batteries. Why not? It’s not like there’s going to be a battery shortage. If you substitute in this entire equation the phrase alkaline battery for marriage, you can reduce it to the absurdity that it is.

Why do you think that some people don’t feel as you do on this issue?
It’s probably the standard, the exposure concept -- you take a member of group A looking at a member of group B. If he doesn’t actually know anybody in group B, the likelihood that he’s prejudiced against him or suspicious of him is statistically something like 90%. As soon as he personally knows somebody from group B, his odds of being prejudiced against that group drop to 10%. It’s as simple as that.

You said that you were hard-pressed to name even an extended family member who is gay or a close friend who had suffered antigay discrimination, but you obviously know several gay people, some of whom have appeared on your show --
One of whom has a show after mine.

Yes, Rachel Maddow -- so for you, it has been exposure and getting to know people.
I’m trying to think if there was ever anything in my upbringing at which I had to say, “No, that’s not true, gay people are fine too.” I don’t remember ever having to make that decision. It did take me a while to remember there is at least one gay member of my family. But, as important as it is to your community, the premise is not gay versus straight. It goes back to the idea of prejudice.

My family name is German. We are German Lutherans; however, because of the similarity of that name to a lot of Jewish names … My father told me this story when I was a kid. He’s an architect, and early in his career, the people at a major department store wanted to hire a full-time in-house architect. They interviewed him, and he came home and said, “You wouldn’t believe this. After the first couple questions, they gradually started asking questions that were hints -- like questions about what did I like to do on Saturday.” He said they were getting around to the point, without actually asking it, because it was already illegal to do this in a job interview, of whether or not he was Jewish. Finally he said, “I know what you’re getting at, because the last three or four questions have been obliquely about my religion. I’ve got to tell you something: I’m not Jewish. In fact, I’m not very religious at all. And in fact, I would never work for” -- fill in a serious string of colorful expletives -- “blank-a-blank-a-blank-a-blankers to whom it makes a goddamn difference.” And he got up and left. That makes an impression on a kid in a very good way because you understand the material things that have to be given up sometimes.

In the early ’80s I went out on a date with a great girl, and she happened to be African-American. We went to a restaurant I’d been to a thousand times. It was almost empty, and they took us over to one corner. I noticed another couple being seated about two tables away from us, which was really strange, because it was basically one couple for every 30 tables. This was a black guy with a white girl. I thought, Why did they seat them over here? I guess the waiter over here has more time on their hands than the waiter over there. About 15 minutes after that, in comes another white guy with a black girl, and I turned to my date and said, “Seriously, is it like this?” She said, “Every damn day.” I got it before, intellectually, and just saw enough of it to understand in a different way, viscerally.

So it applies to all people who are subject to prejudice. I am an honorary member of every minority group because I got the tour, and it is something that everybody in this country should go through. Just that moment, nine out of 10 prejudices would evaporate.

We have not seen a major team-sport athlete come out as gay, at least not before retiring. Is the homophobic atmosphere in sports lessening? Can we expect in the near future to see anyone unafraid to be openly gay, say, in Major League Baseball, in the NFL?
I’ve talked of this with some of the more enlightened and intelligent athletes of my acquaintance and come up with this conclusion. A friend of mine said, “When you're on a team of athletes, it’s kind of like a war without actual bullets; you get that close to the people you work with. There are all sorts of really important human emotions going on, and it’s all men. We come from this testosterone-filled, amped-up atmosphere of clanging helmets and running into people and knocking them down, and a guy gets traded and you want to start crying and you give him a big hug. There’s nothing that’s going to confuse athletes faster than nonerotic emotion toward members of the same gender.” They have been raised in an environment in which affection has to be physical, ’cause everything’s physical -- it’s a sport, it’s running into a wall -- so if they feel affection toward another guy on their team, they go right to a big macho announcement that they’re not gay. A guy like me will then say, “Nobody asked if this was gay; we’re just saying, ‘How do you feel about your best friend being traded?’”

There’s such an overreaction to this that I think the sports world is probably going to be the last cultural thing in America that admits anything. I say, “You’ve probably collected a baseball card of at least a couple of gay all-stars.” In sports the reaction to that is “No, it can’t possibly be true,” because that would also mean guys that might have been raised in an environment of prejudice discover they could have nonphysical affection with a guy who turned out to be gay. That’s way too much for the average athlete to understand. So it’ll be a while, I think. Someday some prominent athlete is just going to casually mention it and then the edifice will come tumbling down. But in the interim, it’s “Nope! Never. 0%!”

Back to someone who is openly gay and quite successful, Rachel Maddow --
Rachel’s gay?

Believe it or not! She had appeared on your show several times before getting her own show; do you feel you helped launch her?
There’s a practical answer to that -- I taught her how to use a TelePrompTer. Her big lack of confidence was, “I don’t know how to use a TelePrompTer.” I said, “Let me clue you in. The entire, four-year program we can do in seven minutes. And we’ll have lunch, and then we’ll go back and get your master’s in another three minutes. It’s not very complicated.” She, of course, being who she is, came in and practiced for 20 minutes at a time. She said, “Am I any good at this?” I said, “By this point, no one will know you’re reading a TelePrompTer.”

As to getting the show, the only thing I did that other people didn’t was, having done television shows and been the centerpiece of many of them, occasionally somebody else’s personality traits are so obvious that you can say, “That person can successfully carry the weight of a show on their own shoulders.” Other people here, long before me, said, “Rachel Maddow is great on television, a great guest, and a great analyst,” and I said, “I think she’s a host.” I think I was the first person that noticed that, and I did talk to people in management about her and say, “Host!” Finally, they said, “Well, if you’re willing to try her out on your show,” and I said, “In a minute.” She started guest-hosting, and although she didn’t fully know it at the time, that was basically an audition. The rest was what we expected, and even more delightfully, faster than we expected -- with negligible resistance or even acknowledgment that there’s anything special in her orientation.

It’s maybe the first postmodern story about this in media. Like, OK, “Big news! Lesbian to host news show!” And then it’s like, “Oh, OK.” There really wasn’t any story there, was there? She’s doing really well, and people like her, and people watch the show, so that’s all there is to that, isn’t there? It goes back to that theory of, if you know somebody of a particular group, it doesn’t make any difference anymore. I don’t think Rachel will ever position herself as any kind of flag-waver, but in a subtle, just by being there kind of way, she becomes for many people the person in that group they didn’t know before.

What do you see is your role as a broadcaster?
Do the best job you can seeing the truth and then do the best job you can telling the truth. Risk whatever you have to risk, because ultimately it’s probably not going to be as much as you think it is. Even if it is, at least you will have collapsed, been fired, shot at, or whatever for good reason rather than something stupid or self-serving. I suppose there was some risk in [the Prop. 8 commentary] -- the only risk I felt was, 'I’m not sure if I can read this aloud without getting too choked up to be understood.' I suppose there was some risk to it still, but it’s always worth the risk. Take the chance, because people are willing to speak up in support after you've made your stand. Because I had said that I didn’t have anybody truly in my life who’d been affected by this in any direct way, Ellen DeGeneres called me and said, “I wanted to make sure that you knew somebody who was personally affected by it.” She was very nice.

Many of your Special Comments have been aimed at the Bush administration. With George W. Bush leaving office, any worries about a shortage of material?
Does Prop. 8 give you an answer to that question? [There will be commentary material] possibly on the Prop. 8’s to come. And covering this landmark [Barack Obama] administration and holding them accountable to their promises is going to be interesting.

I’ll close on a frivolous note. What did you think of Ben Affleck’s impersonation of you on Saturday Night Live?
I’ve never had anybody do a successful impersonation, so this by default is number 1. This is kind of my red badge of courage. Sunday Night Football and Saturday Night Live share a studio, and awaiting me was one of the cue cards [signed by Affleck], saying, one, “I didn’t write it” and two, “I did the best I could.” I was delighted.

Newsweek: A Gay Marriage Surge???

I was reading an online article for Newsweek titled, A Gay Marriage Surge. It discussed the slow-but-sure acceptance by the American public of same-gender relationships. The report notes what I have long known: the younger you are, the more likely you are to support not just full & equal rights of GLBTQI people, but full marriage equality: nearly 5 out of every 10 of those aged 34 & younger support same-sex marriage, as compared to 4 in 10 for those aged 35 to 64, and 2 in 10 for the 65+ group. Women also tended to be more supportive of gay marriage (44%) than did men (34%).

Apparently, also the way you view marriage affects your support of equal marriage rights: two-thirds of those who see marriage as legal matter support gay marriage, whereas, two-thirds of those who see it as a religious matter oppose gay marriage.

To me, the Newsweek poll shows the American public’s schizophrenia where equal marriage rights are concerned, and some people's hangup on the word "marriage". While only 39% of those polled approve of actual gay marriage, more than half (55%) are OK with same-sex couples forming “civil unions”--the separate-but-unequal version of what heterosexuals have always had the luxury of taking for granted. These numbers both represent gains since a similar poll was taken in 2004 (when 33% approved equal marriage rights & 40% approved of “civil unions”).

When asked about specific rights (like inheritance rights, health insurance & other employee benefits, Social Security benefits, hospital visitation, adoption rights & serving openly in the US military), relatively big majorities of those polled said they approved of such rights for GLBTQI people (the lowest approval was for gay adoption rights with 53% approving; the highest was for hospital visitation rights at 86%).

The poll also showed that support for the so-called “Federal Marriage Amendment” (FMA) has begun to wane with most respondents now against such an amendment (52%). In 2004, a plurality (47%) favored the FMA. As an aside, voters in Colorado’s 4th district mercifully kicked the hateful Marilyn Musgrave, the principal sponsor of the FMA in the U.S. House, to the curb in the Obama landslide this year. In a year when Prop 8 in California & Amendment 2 in Florida were approved by voters, this sliver of good news was particularly satisfying.

One more nugget of information that proves what I’ve always believed: If you personally know a GLBTQI person, you’re more likely to support equal marriage rights for committed same-sex couples. The report shows that, while in 1994, only a little more than half those polled knew a gay person; in 2008, that proportion increased to more than three-quarters!

That just proves to me the importance of smashing down the closets that hold our lives & our hearts captive. I have long believed that the best thing any of us who have had to spend even a moment of our lives in hiding can do to help not just ourselves but the cause of GLBTQI equality is to start living our lives out loud, because if they know you, it’s harder for them to hate you…at least that’s been my experience.

Newsweek also includes a nice slideshow of gay rights fights around the world, A Changing Tide.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Hatred in the Key of "G" (but not "G" for "Gay", Of Course)

Prop 8: The Musical

You'll notice a lot of familiar faces including Margaret Cho, Neil Patrick Harris (from Doggie Howser, M.D.), Kathy Najimy (of Sister Act & Hocus Pocus), Maya Rudolph (of Saturday Night Live), Nicole Parker (of Mad TV), Allison Janney (of The West Wing), John C. Reilly (one of those character actor types whose face looks familiar because he's played hundreds of roles) & a lot of other familiar faces, including Jack Black as our Lord & Savior.

If it weren't all so sick & sad, it would be absolutely hilarious...

Monday, December 1, 2008

Fox Who???

I know it’s petty, but this simply tickles me.

As if I wasn’t “gay” enough for our next President!!