Monday, January 30, 2006

Ken Mehlman's Wet Dream, The Second Night

Let's see....if a picture is worth a thousand, and we are seeing this four minutes at 30 pictures per second, this should be worth approximately 7.2 million words.

I tend to agree on this matter with frequent commentor Calarato over on GayPatriot:

Kennedy seems to fear that 1957 Brown v. Board of Education is at risk, with Alito!!! (Kennedy doesn’t mention it specifically, but by implication)

I wish, oh how I wish, that Bush would nominate Janice Rogers Brown. We’d see Kennedy’s head explode as he makes the same speech about a respected conservative BLACK, female Supreme Court nominee!

Ken Mehlman's Wet Dream

Or, as the headlines might state it:
"Democratic Candidate For US Senate Attends Global Meeting, Praises Supporters"

The only question in my mind is whether or not the gay groups have the sense not to endorse her.

Then again, they endorse FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters....what's a bit of anti-Semitism and "freedom fighter" rhetoric about terrorists among friends?

UPDATE: Nick (aka ColoradoPatriot), blogging on GayPatriot, has more.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Public School Curriculum Design 101

Lesson 35: There is no way that this movie is relevant to a Spanish class.

Pity the guy didn't call Falwell, et al., though....all he would have had to do is tell them the title, and they'd be on the news shrieking about the schools "not teaching traditional values".

Oh yeah, like they ever actually SAW the movie.....

Anarchists, Communists....but Celibates?

I knew the first two played major roles in Italy's politics, but given today's announcement by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.....apparently the last one does as well.

Of course, one should probably take this in the same spirit as one does other campaign promises, as well as taking into account that this "conveniently" crosses Lent, in which good Catholics are supposed to give up all forms of excitement anyway. But do you really want a man that deprived in charge of a country's armed forces? There's a reason the Swiss Guards are only armed with pikes and lances. :)

Friday, January 27, 2006

Welcome To Democracy

Given the happenings in Palestine this week , one can certainly see the merit of Winston Churchill's complaint that democracy is the worst form of government........but then return to his caveat -- except for all the others.

Clearly the Palestinian people have spoken. The question is.......why? Why did they remove the party that had ruled them for, in essence, four decades, and settle on Hamas, who nobody likes?

Many have tried to make of this some sort of swipe against the United States, saying that this is retaliation for our actions in the Mideast. Some have said this is the Palestinians' way of striking back at Israel.

I maintain that what this represents is the final collection on the bill for Yasser Arafat's death....or, more precisely, the immense corruption of Fatah that he created, furthered, and exploited for the enrichment of himself and his cronies. Meanwhile, Hamas was making a name for itself by feeding the poor, providing education, and giving social services to areas that were sent hundreds of millions of dollars in aid annually, but who never saw a dime of it.

Fatah collapsed because its members put themselves and their ideologies ahead of the Palestinian people. It remains to be seen whether Hamas will learn from that mistake -- and if this is a sea change, or merely a temporary shift in tides.

7/8ths German, 1/8th Irish....

and, according to The Gay-O-Meter, only 26% gay.

Maybe there IS something to that "not gay enough" stuff.

(Hat tip: Le Malcontent)

Thursday, January 26, 2006

GLAAD's Next REALLY Overhyped Cause

I'm surprised there's nothing out about this yet.

Maybe GLAAD shot their wad on Gene Shalit.

There's a double entendre for you......:)

Q: What's the Worst Job In the World?

A: Spokesperson for Wal-Mart.

I mean, really. I'm aware of Wal-Mart's aggressive business practices. I know that small, mom-and-pop stores are at a pygmy-versus-elephant advantage when competing with them. I mean, even today, if you mention them to my political parents, expect to hear a screed about how they "suck the life out of small towns".

But, as Robbie at The Malcontent wisely puts it, what it represents is a start at revenue and re-invigoration for a depressed area of Chicago. Economists Steve Hanke and Stephen J.K. Walters pull no punches in showing how a law brought into being solely to pander to organized labor and punish Wal-Mart will cost Maryland thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue.

End result: instead of jobs, income, and money for the state and local governments, these politicos would rather go without than have Wally World provide them.

Of course, that's the price they'll never admit to unemployed and poor you that they paid.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Just In Case You Wondered...

I really, REALLY hate the kind of crap that The Conjecturer is talking about here.

(hat tip to The Malcontent)

Now THIS Is Funny

Or hideously sad, depending on how you look at it.

Maryland Democrats concerned about the political fallout from last week's court ruling on same-sex marriage are considering a plan to block any final court ruling from taking effect until after the November elections.

The proposal would be offered in legislation by Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) that would freeze any decision from the state's highest court until the General Assembly has time to evaluate it.

And I particularly love this part:

Although many Democrats, including Simmons, said they support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, they also said they recognize that the ruling could hurt the party during key elections this year -- the governor's office and a U.S. Senate seat are at stake.

Fortunately for them, the looniest of Maryland's Republicans are lining up and taking their usual shots, especially the idea of impeaching the judge who made the ruling. But does that excuse the willingness of these supposed "supporters of gay marriage" to stop and throw gays under the bus to protect their seats?

Monday, January 23, 2006

Your Daily Dose of Irony, Again....

those who constantly push lawsuits about gay marriage now trying to suppress them.

How To Get Some Benefits

The right way:

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. proposed some limited medical decision-making rights for unmarried couples today, offering a bill that his staff said keeps a commitment he made nine months ago when he vetoed a more expansive piece of legislation dealing with gay and heterosexual unmarried couples......

The new bill would apply to anyone -- married or unmarried -- who chooses to register an advance directive specifying end-of-life medical care wishes with the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Gay men and women could designate a partner as the person who would make decisions, in accordance with their wishes, if they were unable to do so for themselves.

The wrong way:

Two leading Democrats said Monday they want to ask Colorado voters to decide whether the state should legalize domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, calling it a legal issue, not a debate over traditional marriage values.

Why, you ask?

I'll give you a hint. What kind of and how many couples would benefit from the first, versus the second?

Friday, January 20, 2006

Really, This IS Very Important....

OK....I admit it.....this post is primarily here so I can put a "WARNING, BE CAREFUL, DON'T SCROLL DOWN UNLESS YOU WANT TO SEE SHOCKING NAKEDNESS, THIS IS SO NOT APPROPRIATE FOR WORK" statement up.

And you now have been cautioned appropriately. Carry on. =)

Meanwhile, in somewhat tangentially-related news (which you won't read because you're down looking for the nakedness, you perverts), Trent Lott, erstwhile Senate Majority Leader and noted birthday-party speaker, announced this week from his hometown of Pascagoula, Mississippi, that he will run for his fourth term in the Senate.

Perhaps some appropriate music is in order?

(Ray Stevens, "Mississippi Squirrel Revival")

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Yes, It's Naked....But Is It Art?

Let it never be said that NDT won't live up to a challenge or a promise -- real or implied.

Besides, there's nothing better than people looking at gay conservative types in a whole new way, right?

Posted by Picasa

And, for an additional bit of amusement, if you aren't already laughing your you-know-whats off, take a listen to country funnyman Ray Stevens's famous "The Streak".

Happy Friday, everyone! =)

Hip-Hop on Over...

to Blog Ally The Malcontent's place; as a followup to his previous post on homophobia and rap culture, he has a great interview with gay rapper and blogger QBoy.

Refreshing, witty, insightful -- and it comes with pictures. :)


Anyone Got a 55-Gallon Drum of Peanut Butter?

In two words....... holy smokes.

One major point in the article:

Seaside communities in Japan have tried to capitalize on the menace by developing novel jellyfish dishes from tofu to ice cream, but for some reason the recipes have failed to take off.

Having watched the original Iron Chef, all I can say is, amazing.....even the Japanese have limits to what they'll eat.

Someone's Bluff is Being Called.....

It seems the news of the day is the purported new Osama bin Laden tape, in which he assures the US that terrorist operations are "under way" in the United States and "it is only a matter of time".

But then.....he offers a truce.

“We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to,” he said. “We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.

“There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America,” he said.

The rhetoric is similar to bin Laden's previous "truce" offer to Europe, and should be taken with the same grain of salt as far as their intentions of actually following through with it. God may have forbidden them to lie and cheat, but my parents forbade me to chew tobacco, and we all know how well THAT worked.

But for al-Qaeda to offer a "truce" to the "Great Satan"? Don't know about you, but that tells me someone's a) trying to make himself look peaceful (especially after blowing up Muslim civilians) and b) desperate enough to make deals with people he considers "infidels" after roundly condemning everyone else who does.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

UPDATE: Chad over at Cake or Death adds his own pleasantly-pungent take on the issue.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

"B" Is For........

Much to my surprise this morning, whilst browsing for some information to give blog acquaintance Manhattan Offender concerning his ascribed identity in the gay community, I came upon the information in a wonderfully-concise, well-researched, and referenced form.


Talk about suddenly feeling mainstream.

And, to salute another of MO's fine posts, I think we should see if we can get the AFA to boycott encyclopedias, online or otherwise.

After all, as Helen Lovejoy would put it, "The children! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Exposing the Propaganda

Note to self: If you're going to regularly mention in both pleasant and not-so-pleasant language the Washington Blade, make sure to check it regularly.

Such was the case this morning when I went to check the site stats (thank you, Sitemeter), and found to my amazement that traffic was running quite a bit higher than usual, with several referral pages coming from the Blade. As it turns out, my "Exposing the Exposers" post had been featured on the Blade's Blogwatch section.

Of course, with more traffic comes more comments, and a couple of those have fallen into the, "Did you even read what I wrote?" area.

To whit:

Um, i'm gay and "at the core", my parents are my best friends AND I was never molested, didn't even have any sort of sex until I was 18. Oh, and my brother is gay too. Plus, our parents know we are gay and they love us just the same. See, not all of us are screwed up like you are in Texas.

To give any sort of validation to the idea that homosexuality is a product of molestation or dysfunctional parental relationships is utter trash. It is hurtful, it is indefensible and you should know better.

First off, I know exactly from where the commentor is coming. I myself was never molested, didn't have sex until I was 26, and my parents love me too -- a lot. Indeed, their first reactions to my coming out were straight out of the How to Blame Yourself At Home for Fun and Profit textbook:

1. "How could we have let somebody abuse you?"
2. "Why didn't we spend more time with you?"
3. "We must be terrible parents!"

Of course, the answer to those three points was "None of the above"; therefore, I think I can state rather unequivocally that neither having bad parents or being sexually abused as a child were the reasons that I ended up gay.

However, this is what I wrote, relative to his second point about "validating the idea":

Instead, what one should focus on is the extrapolations that (David, author of the book The Marketing of Evil)Kupelian makes from said quotes and from said facts; for instance, the whole "child molestation" thing can be rebutted by the fact that, while some gays were indeed molested as children and went on to molest children themselves, not all gays were, nor does everyone who was molested as a child turn out gay or molest children. Kupelian deliberately frames his argument in that case to push buttons -- obviously, no one wants to be called a child molester or be associated with them -- but in doing so, sets up an absolutist construct that can be easily and quickly refuted. Furthermore, it gives one the opportunity to point out that child abuse is a universal problem, not limited to "gay" or "straight", and that both sides need to work together to stop it.

The gist of that paragraph is that, while it is an unquestionably-true fact that some molested children turn out gay and some of these gay people who were themselves molested go on to molest other children, that is not sufficient evidence to say that child molestation causes homosexuality. If that were the case, as I pointed out, molested children would uniformly be homosexual, and all homosexuals would have been molested as children -- which is completely false. An absolutist construct, such as Kupelian makes, is invalidated by exceptions -- and there are exceptions. Thus, what I did was to validate one of the facts used in the argument, but refute the argument itself in the process.

What is frankly terrifying is that the commentor is so dead-set against the argument, he considers acknowledging one of the facts used in the argument to be true -- a verified, obvious FACT -- to be the same as validating the argument itself. THIS is what I mean when I say that the gay community is a prisoner of its own propaganda -- we are so desperate to maintain our facade and avoid ANY negative point or connotation that we completely deny reality. It would be utter lunacy to say that gays have never molested children or that no molested child grew up to be gay -- but admitting the obvious corrolary, which is that SOME gays have molested children and SOME molested children have grown up to be gay is "utter trash".

In short, the wingnuts have figured out that the gay community's biggest weakness is our utter inability to go off-script at any level. All they've had to do is find examples that clearly contradict portions of the script, and they can portray us as lying and covering up, because we refuse to yield or acknowledge anything that could be portrayed as antigay.

I, for one, refuse to be held hostage by this idiocy. Yes, there are gays who were molested as children. Yes, there are gays who molest children. Gays like my commentor who refuse to acknowledge this reality consider the manufactured "image" of the gay community to be more important than the facts. Wingnuts who try to extrapolate this into "proof" that all gays are child molestors are fools and liars who are hijacking the real problem of and battle against child abuse to suit their personal prejudices and are allowing MORE children to be abused by failing to confront the true issues involved.

Friday, January 13, 2006

GLAAD's Next Overhyped Cause

Well, this just proves that the IRS and the Justice Department hate gays and consider them all to be frauds and tax cheats.

Why not? After all, Gene Shalit's calling a gay character in a movie a "sexual predator" proves he hates gays and considers them all to be sexual predators, his words about his son notwithstanding.

God, I love the smell of hysteria in the afternoon.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Deja Vu All Over Again

Given that the temperature has hovered at or way above 60-plus degrees for the last month or so in Dallas, with us receiving even less rain than we did in July, I am officially declaring the end of winter and the beginning of spring.

Unfortunately, like in wartime days of old, the budding of trees and the blooming of flowers, usually signals the latest offensive by the offensive, as I like to term the wingnuts and the moonbats.

This time, the wingnuts have fired the first salvo.

When one looks at that, when compared to the original kerfluffle, the thing you immediately notice is the vanishment of the word "agreement" -- as in, instead of having an agreement with Ford, Ford merely represented to these groups that it would do such-and-such.

In other words, the Rev was lying through his tooth about that "secret agreement" thing. Carry on.

Second off, again with the advertising. For the fiftieth time, people, wingnut and moonbat alike: advertising means nothing relative to gay rights. Nothing. Get that through your tinfoil hats and bad hairpieces. NOTHING.

However, this time around, they've gotten smarter -- in two ways.

First, the messaging. To whit:

”After meeting with seven homosexual leaders and without any input from thousands of their dealers who stand to be adversely affected by Ford’s decision, Ford made their decision to renege on actions they told AFA they would take,” Wildmon said. “Ford’s support for these groups pushing homosexual marriage can only hurt dealers across the country. Why would Ford put the interests of seven homosexual groups ahead of the interests of all their dealers? Simply because Ford considers seven homosexual leaders more important than thousands of their dealers.”

Like it or not, they've got a point there. Unfortunately, it's one that will resonate out in the field, especially with dealerships that just went through end-of-year close on their books.

Second up, they brought friends this time. A rather sizeable list of friends, if you look, and names rather infamous as generals in the "culture wars".

So what's the moonbat response? Quiet for now, which is a bit of a suprise -- perhaps they're learning that opening their big mouths tends to make matters worse, not better. I'm sure a large part of the reason the AFA did this was to provoke an outpouring of homosexual thanks to Ford for their "support of our agenda", which only plays right into the AFA's hands. Kudos to the moonbats, whether this was planned or not.

Mark January 20th, or a week from Friday, on your calendar; that's the deadline that the AFA has given Ford to respond, melodramatically, "in writing, because we no longer trust you". Right.

I will be interested in seeing how all this plays out. The obvious thought is that this coalition may launch a boycott, especially given their positioning and appeal in the media statement, and with that many groups playing in the sandbox, it could hurt -- a lot. I guess we'll have to see.

Oh, and while we're waiting, the AFA is claiming victory in getting advertisers to pull back from the new NBC show "The Book of Daniel", including the makers of NDT's trusty steed.

The fact that people aren't throwing the same kind of fit over that means one of two things, in my opinion:

1) The show really is lousy.

2) GLAAD, et al., don't care about anything that shows a gay conservative (Republican, in this case) in a positive light.

I lean towards the second.

They Prefer That Not-So-Fresh Feeling

The reason for the strange titling of this post will become all too clear when one reviews Israel's actions today in the light of The Malcontent's witticism last week.

C'est la guerre.

The Mummies Return

One has to comment on the bizarre coincidence this week involving the discovery of families keeping mummified bodies of their loved ones in Cincinnati and Italy.

The apparent cause in the Italian case -- keeping Mummy's (sorry) pension checks coming -- I can understand. But the more you read about the Cincinnati case, the stranger it gets.

Couple that with botched suicide pacts and LabKat's report on thin-skinned cannibals, and one wonders....why is weirdness breaking out all over the world, as if the forces of some unimaginable cauldron of irrationality, strangeness, and greed were no longer contained or isolated in a single spot?

Then I remembered...Congress is out on recess. =)

Monday, January 09, 2006

Exposing the Exposers

Steve Miller over at Independent Gay Forum posted today about what he terms "the anti-gay right's latest bit of dangerous nonsense"; in this case, the recently-released book by David Kupelian, vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily. Kupelian's book, The Marketing of Evil, is supposedly an expose of how various groups have used various media forms and methods of advertising and propaganda to change Americans' perceptions of the "evil" of things from abortion to body-piercing.

In this case, the very first chapter of The Marketing of Evil, in which Kupelian accuses the gay community of following a "master plan" to make homosexuality more publicly acceptable, as outlined in the book After the Ball : How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

However, as Steve ably points out in his post, this book is hardly the "bible" of the gay movement that Kupelian claims it to be; indeed, at the time it was written, it wasn't widely accepted within the gay community itself. This makes Kupelian's argument akin to those of the anti-Semites claiming that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion outline a Jewish plot to take over the world; it requires a belief that "gays" or "Jews" are some monolithic population base in which everyone behaves the same way and follows the same orders.

Or, in other words, something plausible only to people who think they don't know any gay people.

However, as the saying goes, the most effective of fantasies are those that are grounded in reality, and, to be honest, Kupelian DOES include a lot of reality, including direct quotes from the book, that bring up an uncomfortable truth.....even though we may not have been doing it in an organized fashion, gays HAVE used several PR and propaganda tricks to both play on and manipulate peoples' emotions in our favor. While his views on the motivations of gays to "initiate" children into our "culture of corruption" are WAY out there, the fact remains at the core that many gays WERE molested as children or had dysfunctional relationships with one or both of their parents. Given the loud and public statements of "gay rights" groups condemning Christians and other religious individuals as "superstitious bigots" and "Nazis", it's easy to see how he can make such wild and inaccurate statements about gays being out to destroy Christianity.

All of these would seem to be obvious and simple observations. Yet, as I previously blogged, we're still asking people to realize that "born gay" is at best an oversimplification and at worst deliberately misleading -- and saying that touched off a flurry in the Comments section, although not nearly on the level of some things I've been called for saying the same thing.

What this means to me is that, in an ironic twist, the "gay community" has become a prisoner of its own propaganda. We've been repeating the same things for so long that, regardless of how true they are, we can't act any differently. Worse, as I discussed with fellow blogger The Malcontent over the weekend, this makes us vulnerable; because we believe that we cannot yield an inch, we come off as arrogant and insensitive to peoples' concerns. Kupelian's rhetoric, carefully honed to antagonize gays while appearing sympathetic to them, exacerbates the problem.

The reason that this is important is twofold; it strengthens our enemies' hands against us and it makes us more vulnerable.

To the first, when Steve dismisses Kupelian's claims as "nonsense", Kupelian can return fire with the fact that he is using quotes directly from the aforementioned book and that several of his arguments are based on observable facts -- which puts Steve in the position of defending himself and his arguments while looking like a liar. Instead, what one should focus on is the extrapolations that Kupelian makes from said quotes and from said facts; for instance, the whole "child molestation" thing can be rebutted by the fact that, while some gays were indeed molested as children and went on to molest children themselves, not all gays were, nor does everyone who was molested as a child turn out gay or molest children. Kupelian deliberately frames his argument in that case to push buttons -- obviously, no one wants to be called a child molester or be associated with them -- but in doing so, sets up an absolutist construct that can be easily and quickly refuted. Furthermore, it gives one the opportunity to point out that child abuse is a universal problem, not limited to "gay" or "straight", and that both sides need to work together to stop it.

Concerning the second, our inability to publicly admit our problems that contradict our propaganda precludes our finding a correct solution. As we all know, gay culture is highly sexualized; unfortunately, one of the outgrowths of this is to encourage promiscuous and dangerous behavior, i.e. unprotected sex or sex while high, with the result being a far higher-than-average rate of HIV infection. However, because we cannot publicly deal with or acknowledge for propaganda reasons the real issue, which is that way too many people are having way too much sex while way too drugged while way too few are using protection or sanity, we blame the pharmaceutical companies for tempting us with impotence drugs (hat tip to Steve).

Yeah, THAT'LL fix it.

To summarize, in order to deal with the "new wingnuts" like Kupelian, who have studied the gay community, know our faults and fibs, and know how to push our buttons, we're going to have to develop a new way of doing things based less on absolutism and more on openness and honesty. We must change from our previous stance of positional ("I'm not budging") and transactional ("I win, you lose") argument to an integrative structure, more oriented towards collaboration than conquest, and willing to share and take responsibility for issues.

It's going to require a sea change in attitudes, away from the "I'm a victim, you're always wrong" attitude the "gay community" currently holds; unfortunately, I again question whether the "leadership" of our community, whose entire lives and finances are contingent upon their ability to deliver unquestioning, obedient votes and public support, can make this change for the good of gay rights -- or if they will continue to put their pocketbooks and pimping for cocktail-party invites ahead of those of us outside the Beltway whose "rights" they so eagerly barter away.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Good Light, Bad Light

With Tom DeLay announcing his overdue timely decision to not seek to regain his leadership post, two individuals -- Representative John Boehner of Ohio and acting Majority Leader and Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri -- have announced that they will run for House Majority Leader.

Obviously the positions of the two will be hashed out over the next few weeks.....but looking at the images of them as included in that article, I can tell you already who has the better photographer and/or media rep.

Either that, or Blunt should have been a shoo-in for this role.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Words to Live By

One of the better bloggers -- and nicer guys -- I've had the pleasure of meeting in my times online has been Dunner of Dunner's Stunners. When I visited San Francisco over Memorial Day of 2005, Dunner graciously took time out of his schedule -- especially his schedule of training for the Wisconsin Ironman -- to meet me and the significant other for coffee and conversation.

Unfortunately, between even people you know online, tempers often flash and words are often said, things that would never come up in face to face conversation, but which the anonymity and ease of the online environment foster and fan.

Newfound blogfriend Jack Malebranche phrases it like this:

For what it's worth, I know well that the Internet has a way of bringing out nastiness in people who could easily be friends in real life.

A friend of mine calls it the 'punch in the nose factor.' No one is worried about getting punched in the nose, so they say what is REALLY on their minds, employing language and argumentative tactics they would only use with a sworn enemy in person.

Dunner brought this up in an excellent point yesterday; as he usually does, he proposed an even better solution.

But still it's frustrating to see that the loudest voices, not the most well-thought, poignant or respectful, are the ones that are heard. Online this is especially true. So a resolution for the new year: I won't type anything I wouldn't tell a person to his face.

Neither will I.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

For 2006, I'd Like A........

Blog Ally Mary over at GayOrbit posted a great wish list of things she'd like to see happen in 2006 that I thought I'd shamelessly cut out and bring over here for discussion.

#1 - An acceptance among gay people that Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships - not marriage - may be the best way to go about securing our relationship with the state.

I give that a qualified, "Yes, BUT....."

To me, DPs and Civil Unions do one thing right -- they acknowledge that gay couples are not heterosexual procreative couples and don't particularly need the same things that those are granted. But what they DON'T do is acknowledge the fact that there aren't too many options for heterosexual NON-procreative relationships that may be in a situation similar to gay couples; it's either all or nothing, and that creates the perception, if not the fact, of inequality of options for glbt couples.

Thus, for 2006, what I'd like to see is a cleaning of the marriage attic -- that is, going through the vaunted "1300 benefits" and tossing them into boxes that say, "Crotchfruit You Produced", "Crotchfruit Someone Else Produced, But You're Raising", and "Crotchfruit-Free, For Now".

Once we get that done, we can subdivide marriage into different models for the discerning consumer with exciting new marketing names. Imagine going up to the clerk's desk and seeing your menu options: "The Cleavers", "The Bradys", and "The (Elton) Johns".

2. The recognition that the “choice”/”born-that-way” dichotomy is terribly reductionist and fails to address the complexity of human experience and biology. Perhaps we can find a new way to discuss the “origins” of homosexuality, one that takes into account human variation and multiplicity.

For some reason, this has been the third rail of gay oratory -- most likely because it would seem to lend credulity to the wingnuts' shriek of "Choice! Choice!" as a reason that queers will spend eternity backstroking through brimstone. Mary is kind in calling it "reductionist"; in my opinion, given the number of gay men I know who have managed a surprising amount of crotchfruit (sorry, I LOVE that word), the fact that not having the preferred target does not completely prevent the gun from going off moves it right up there with "spontaneous generation".

Thus, for 2006, I not only want to see this theory put aside, I want to see people stand up and say, "Yes, I chose to be honest about who I liked best!"

3. Diversity - political, racial, geographic, and more - among gay people becomes highlighted in the gay, as well as mainstream, press.

I give a BIG bravo to Mary for this one, because it really IS the ultimate key to both protecting and securing the rights of gay citizens.

However, what the "gay community" seems to be doing on this one is fixing half of the problem. For instance, Patrick Guerreiro's recent call for gay conservatives to "come out" is a reasonable request, but at the same time, what he and others need to realize is that a lot of us have no interest whatsoever in traditionally what has been the price of admission to be "gay" -- the antireligious, pro-abortion, Democratic-at-all-costs, hate-Republicans-regardless, comparing-the-Pope-and-Bush-to-Hitler rhetoric required to keep your HRC and NGLTF card and bumper stickers.

Thus, for 2006, I would love to get through the year without once being told, "You can't be gay because you...."

4. International gay equality takes center stage in U.S.-based GLBT organizations.

And especially in terms of recognizing the inherent incompatibility of having speakers at events ostensibly held over gay rights who harangue Israel over its repression and praise Palestine over its tolerance.

Thus, for 2006, I would prefer that gay rights organizations and events do a little fact-checking prior to sending out their invitations.

5. And, most importantly, we need to talk about why people continue to watch The L Word despite the fact that the show sucks. The pretty hair? The nice cars? The beautiful outfits? Shane? This question needs to be addressed. Now. Before the girlfriend and I host yet another season premiere party.'re on your own on this one, Mary. :)

And for those of you who were wondering, you can see MY tongue-in-cheek "resolutions", complete with pictures and those provided by other bloggers, over at The Malcontent.