A personal blog by a graying (mostly Anglo with light African-American roots) gay left leaning liberal progressive married college-educated Buddhist Baha'i BBC/NPR-listening Professor Emeritus now following the Dharma in Minas Gerais, Brasil.
A billboard company in Colorado Springs (home to Focus On The Family, numerous megachurches, and a completely devastated city infrastructure) has banned a bus stop campaign for Avenue Q. Because it shows puppet cleavage.
The puppet's name is Lucy the Slut. She's a pink Sesame Street-like puppet in the touring Broadway show “Avenue Q.” "Avenue Q" is a Tony-winning musical about twenty-something New Yorkers, both human and puppets, searching for life and love. The show addresses issues like sex, drinking, and surfing the Web for porn. Lamar Advertising rejected the ad for bus shelters, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette newspaper. "We were in the process of putting it on the presses when one of the top execs saw it and said, ‘I don’t think it’s appropriate for the Colorado Springs market,’" according to Kristy Maple, marketing director for New Space Entertainment.
Nationally ranked college wrestler Hudson Taylor is a passionate advocate for LGBT rights, to the point where he even competed with the HRC logo on his headgear. Via Outsports:
When Hudson Taylor proposed to Lia Alexandra Mandaglio, it was fitting that it was the same night they saw the movie "Milk." The story about a pioneering gay rights advocate meant a lot to the couple. Back at Mandaglio's condominium in Washington DC, Taylor, a University of Maryland wrestler, presented her with a signed edition of Martin Luther King's book "Why We Can't Wait." She didn't wait, and said yes. They will be married on Sept. 24, 2011. Taylor proposed to Lia Alexandra Mandaglio the same night they saw "Milk." "The proposal is a big event not to be taken lightly," Taylor said. "We're both very progressive and very outspoken in LGBT and feminist issues." The book "symbolized how we felt and how we would act," and was "very fitting for the engagement." Being outspoken and passionate is nothing new for Taylor, 36-2 this season and ranked No. 3 in the country in the 197-pound NCAA wrestling weight class. In addition to being a champion wrestler, he is an academic All American with his eye on law school and a possible future political career.
(AUGUSTA, ME) Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, who run the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and their $1000.00 per hour attorneys from Indiana, continue to run afoul of Maine's election laws. NOM still refuses to report the names of all its $100 and up contributors who gave nearly $2 million to ban gay marriage in the Pine Tree State. Now they are trying to halt the investigation and subpoena into their finances and fund-raising.
NOM has tried this before when it asked Federal Judge D. Brock Hornby to allow it to avoid all reporting laws. Judge Hornby again ordered Maggie and Brian to report their contributor's names to last fall's Yes on Question 1 campaign. State Attorney General Janet Mills did the same late last year, but the New Jersey based NOM will not obey Maine's election law and refuses to report where all its money came from.
Every other religious organization that supported Question 1 obeyed the Maine election law and filed as a PAC when they raised over $5,000 except NOM. NOM raised and gave over $1.9 million - 2/3 of all money raised and well above the $5,000 threshold! NOM even tried unsuccessfully to end the state of Maine investigation into its alleged money laundering, but the Ethics Commission turned that down, too 4 to 1.
"Who are they trying to protect?" asked Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, who filed the original complaint with the Maine Ethics Commission last August. "Every other donor to Yes on Question 1 complied with the law, but NOM refuses."
The California Fair Political Practices Commission also has an active investigation of NOM underway (Case #08-735), as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church). The investigation has been going on for the past 16 months. NOM has been widely reported to be a front group for the Mormon Church in its crusade to ban gay marriage throughout the U.S.
Here's the story from the Bangor Daily News by Kevin Miller:
AUGUSTA, Maine — More than three months after Mainers voted down same-sex marriage, the organization that provided much of the money to the traditional marriage camp is still fighting to block the state from forcing disclosure of their donor lists.
This past week, the National Organization for Marriage lost another skirmish in the larger legal battle over its campaign finances.
U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby in Portland overruled NOM’s objections to having to turn over donor lists and correspondence between NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine regarding the campaign to repeal Maine’s gay marriage law. The court has yet to rule on the larger case challenging Maine’s campaign reporting laws, however.
The documents being sought — and what they say about who donated to NOM and why — are key to a Maine Ethics Commission investigation into whether the group’s failure to disclose donors violated state campaign finance laws.
NOM, which is based in New Jersey, said it donated more than $1.9 million to Stand for Marriage Maine from its war chest for fighting gay marriage nationwide. But critics contend NOM was raising money specifically for the gay marriage fight in Maine, which, if true, would trigger the state’s donor disclosure rules.
This Thursday, the Ethics Commission will decide whether to push forward with subpoenas for the documents. Hornby’s decision appears to clear the way for the commission to reiterate its demands from NOM.
Jonathan Wayne, the commission staff’s executive director, offered this explanation for why the documents are important: “NOM donated almost $2 million in support of the referendum. The commission needs to understand how NOM solicited the funds in order to determine whether campaign finance reporting was required.”
Regardless, the list of donors would only be made public if the commission rules NOM was legally obligated to file the information with the state.
Gay Politics in Britain What's one difference between conservatism in the United Kingdom and conservatism in the United States? Look to the issue of gay rights. In the UK, conservatives have made bold efforts to reach out to LGBT voters, while in the U.S., radical religious values dominate. Gay Rights blogger Nathan Tabak writes that with a history of supporting homophobic legislation, including ballot measures banning gay marriage, the GOP and gay voters have to do some serious soul-searching as to whether there's a place for gay people inside conservatism. (Read more)
Recently we've seen been nonstop support for the repeal of DADT from the upper echelons of the armed services.
The top commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone - gay and straight - should be allowed to serve in the military "as long as we are still able to fight our wars." The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno (Oh-dee-AIR-no) is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue. Odierno helped lead a troop buildup in Iraq that reduced violence and has paved the way for a planned reduction of U.S. forces.
Yet today White House spokeswaffle Robert Gibbs refused to commit to a 2010 repeal attempt.
Conventional political wisdom says that conservatives benefit politically from making national security a vital issue. Implied is the notion that though everyone suffers from terrorism, conservatives can gain from it, at least on the political stage. While that would be an abominable approach to encourage, the growing stake of Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal in News Corporation, the parent company of FOX News, suggests FOX benefits more directly from a man with a questionable background, raising the ire even of fellow conservatives.
Al-Waleed has long held some portion of the News Corp. stock, but as he has risen to the fourth-highest shareholder in the company, criticism for his involvement with the company has grown. Joseph Trento reports that while Al-Waleed regularly defends his home nation as pristine, interviewers tend to ignore the large donations to the families of suicide bombers he reportedly makes. Generally, organizations or governments pay the families of suicide bombers as a kind of reward for the actions of their deceased relatives. As such, Al-Waleed's donations would, in effect, count as supporting terrorism, a particularly onerous recognition for the "fair and balanced" news source. Somehow, Glenn Beck managed to miss connecting those dots on his chalkboard.
The prince and FOX have had scuffles in the past. After 9/11, FOX personalities excoriated the prince for offering a check for millions of dollars to help rebuild New York because the prince had suggested U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East may have had something to do with the attacks. Subsequently, FOX wrote off the check as "blood money." Strangely, though, FOX later accepted Al-Waleed's cash for a piece of the company and allowed the prince the right to manipulate FOX stories, a power he boasts of having over the network.
FOX's unusual pairing with someone with alleged ties to terrorism have caused conservatives like Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily to lambaste the alliance, as well. The ever-present calls for profiling and subtler demonization of Islam within conservative circles and perpetuated on FOX make the prince's stake in the company a confusing one. However, Rupert Murdoch's ties to China, maintained in spite of his employees' bashing of communism, illustrate that while FOX may have a willingness to force a focused, biased narrative onto the public, it is nonetheless a narrative with elements for sale to people with enough cash, no matter how authoritarian the regime or dubious the money's origins.
Funding from the Saudi prince will assuredly warrant more investigation as his influence in the company grows ever larger. If Al-Waleed does, in fact, fund terrorism, one would expect that a network that nearly drapes itself in the American flag would recognize some internal conflict worth addressing. Unfortunately, too much of FOX's investigative powers waste time literally barking at the president. As FOX refuses to keep its viewers duly informed, everyone else has an obligation to spread the truth about its owners -- and choose to Turn Off FOX.
I was reading about all the teabaggers and their leader, Sarah Palin, and how they all think it’s not the right time for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to be repealed.
Meg Whitman, the pro Prop 8 Republican Gubernatorial wannabe, who landed in CEO butter a mere six months before EBAY went public, is now using those very consumer dollars- and an estimated 150 million of them to pony up an early bid to buy California. jump here to read the full article on Lezgetreal
That “nothing” was on full display this afternoon, when I got to ask Maggie Gallagher the question I’ve always wanted to ask her: What do you think that am I supposed to do with my life?
Suppose I found myself in agreement with her. Suppose I concluded that same-sex marriage was corrosive to society. Do I leave my husband? Do I send my adopted daughter back to the state? Enter ex-gay therapy, which isn’t likely to work? Tell my whole family that I’m single now, and that Scott shouldn’t be welcome at family events? Live my whole life alone, and loveless? Hide? Where is the life I’m supposed to live?
I probably wasn’t so articulate at the Cato event, but I do recall Gallagher’s very simple answer: “I don’t know.”
— Riveting stuff. Maggie Gallagher is the clearest and most dangerous representation of what we as gay people face as a politically active community in this country. She is smart, charming, and clearly has the courage of her convictions. She is, in a word, the Enemy. And she must be defeated.
Q: I've heard therapists say that a male adult who sexually abuses a boy isn't necessarily ‘homosexual.' This seems confusing: If he isn't homosexual, then why would he sexually molest boys, instead of girls?
This is a very good question, and there are several ways to respond to it. First, we need to clarify our definitions. When discussing sexual abuse and molestation of children, there's often conflict over terminology. One frequently quoted researchers on the topic of homosexuality and child molestation,Gregory Herek, a research psychologist at the University of California, defines pedophilia as "a psychosexual disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners, which may or may not be acted upon." He defines child sexual abuse as "actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent." Not all pedophiles actually molest children, he points out. A pedophile may be attracted to children, but never actually engage in sexual contact with them. Quite often, pedophiles never develop a sexual orientation toward other adults.
"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East -- you're as good as dead." - Elton John, speaking to Parade Magazine.
Probably in response to Tuesday's blog swarm, the Human Rights Campaign today issued a five point plan regarding the repeal of DADT.
Guiding our work over the next months will be a number of key principles:
* Continued Presidential Leadership We have - and will continue to — call on the White House to include DADT repeal language in the 2011 Department of Defense authorization bill. HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt made that clear in this story by the DC Agenda on Jan. 11.
* Congressional Action in 2010 We believe that legislative action must run on a parallel track with the work of the DOD implementation review. We have — and will continue to — press the Senate to include repeal language in the final mark up of this year’s DOD authorization bill.
* Gates/Mullen review While the testimony of Gates and Mullen marked a historic and extraordinary move towards final repeal of DADT, HRC is advocating that the announced review is comprehensive and expeditious, and includes input from lesbian and gay service members and veterans. We will work to ensure the Working Group established by Secretary Gates will have all the data and information necessary to address any and all implementation issues.
* Strategic Partnerships HRC will continue to partner with key groups and Congressional allies working toward repeal including the Center for American Progress, Servicemembers United and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. By continuing to pool our resources, contacts and intelligence, we can meet the opposition head on and build even greater momentum for repeal.
* Voices of Veterans HRC’s “Voices of Honor” campaign is organizing veterans across the country to generate media, grassroots and grass tops pressure in key states that will be critical to the final votes in the House and Senate. The campaign builds on the work of the national “Voices of Honor Tour” last summer which led to 30 new Congressional co-sponsors and garnered national media attention to this discriminatory law.
A billboard company in Colorado Springs (home to Focus On The Family, numerous megachurches, and a completely devastated city infrastructure) has banned a bus stop campaign for Avenue Q. Because it shows puppet cleavage. 
