For the ten or so of you that have wondered where I am these days, I am now blogging (albeit sporadically) at GayOrbit and Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments.
And yes, I AM enjoying the additional time. :)
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Friday, June 02, 2006
To Everything, Turn, Turn, Turn
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3: 1 - 8
And with that, friends, I would like to formally announce that my days as an independent blogger are on indefinite hiatus.
The first and foremost reason why is my partner. Until you move in with one, you don't fully realize how it reorders your priorities. Obviously there are duties of home and hearth, but most importantly, I find myself wanting to spend more and more of my time with him -- which leaves less and less for blogging.
Second off, I was recently selected to take part in an exciting and edifying effort to help raise funds and awareness of issues facing people with HIV/AIDS here in the community. This hearkens back to my activist roots, but again takes more time away from putting electrons to screen.
What this all adds up to is that it is time to take a step back. I will be maintaining this site as an archive and may occasionally post things here; however, I am actively seeking other opportunities to co-blog or freelance-contribute to other blogs, rather than maintaining a separate site.
Again, thanks to all of you. I'll be keeping the same email (northdallasthirty - at - yahoo.com) and will let you know where I am publishing.
Good night, and God bless.
and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3: 1 - 8
And with that, friends, I would like to formally announce that my days as an independent blogger are on indefinite hiatus.
The first and foremost reason why is my partner. Until you move in with one, you don't fully realize how it reorders your priorities. Obviously there are duties of home and hearth, but most importantly, I find myself wanting to spend more and more of my time with him -- which leaves less and less for blogging.
Second off, I was recently selected to take part in an exciting and edifying effort to help raise funds and awareness of issues facing people with HIV/AIDS here in the community. This hearkens back to my activist roots, but again takes more time away from putting electrons to screen.
What this all adds up to is that it is time to take a step back. I will be maintaining this site as an archive and may occasionally post things here; however, I am actively seeking other opportunities to co-blog or freelance-contribute to other blogs, rather than maintaining a separate site.
Again, thanks to all of you. I'll be keeping the same email (northdallasthirty - at - yahoo.com) and will let you know where I am publishing.
Good night, and God bless.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Good Things Come to Those Who Wait
Over on the (newly-redesigned and very slick) Independent Gay Forum, Steve Miller is discussing how, as people age, they tend to become more conservative -- and the impact that might have on the fact that people of the up-and-coming generation are more gay-tolerant than any others.
Steve's controversial postulate is that association of gays with "left-liberalism's big-government, redistributionist social agenda" could potentially turn these young folks against gays. His commentors have generally returned with the "nobody is thinking of welfare or public school", which I do believe is a valid complaint.
However, the gist of Steve's argument is dead-on, in my opinion; namely that what tends to turn people against the idea of anything is when it's imposed on them by fiat.
In our government, the structure is set up as a reaction to a monarchical form of government; through the election process, particularly in the executive and legislative branches, the government is "by the people and for the people". However, what we also have is a branch -- the judiciary -- which by design is meant to hover above the fray and not be directly subject to the whims of the masses. Judges are encouraged to be unknown to the public, to avoid making appearances and statements, and to reject input on their decisions from the general populace. Simply stated, they don't ask your opinion -- they give you theirs, and that's final.
As any manager of employees or projects can tell you, people support that which they help to create and resist that which they do not. Think about how we react at work or at home when we are told to do something or to carry out orders that we feel are completely arbitrary. The natural response is to look for flaws and holes -- or, put differently, reasons not to do something. Worse, these natural responses are usually based, not on the idea itself, but on one's perceptions of it -- which more often than not are not rational and/or factually-based.
Given that knowledge, should it surprise anyone that people would be inclined to distrust and oppose judicial decisions? Would one not expect that people who feel put-upon by the judge's unilateral action, even though they may not oppose it per se, act to limit the judge's power?
My experience with the sodomy law in Texas was very similar. Most people didn't know it existed, and if they did, thought it was kind of dumb, especially since it was so rarely enforced. But the thing they thought was even dumber was the courts telling Texas how to run itself -- exactly what happened in Lawrence v. Texas. What could have been handled directly with a legislative change was instead ramrodded through -- and the backlash left gay rights in even worse shape than before.
What the information portends is that there likely will be a sea change in attitudes towards gays politically over the next one to two decades. It's come about and will continue because thousands of gays throughout the country have been willing to present a view of gays that isn't anything like what "gay activists" (or, ironically, the antigay forces) wanted people to see -- namely, that gays are normal people just like everyone else.
This change isn't because of ACT UP desecrating churches, or gays throwing used condoms, or NGLTF and HRC forking over tens of millions of dollars to the DNC's homophobic leaders and candidates. It isn't because of "gay leaders" making hundreds of thousands of dollars by peddling gays as cannon fodder for unpopular leftist groups. Most importantly, it absolutely isn't because "gay activists" have avoided voters and gone shopping for non-hostile courts to impose their will on a disgruntled public.
Keep doing those, and we'll stay spinning in place.
Steve's controversial postulate is that association of gays with "left-liberalism's big-government, redistributionist social agenda" could potentially turn these young folks against gays. His commentors have generally returned with the "nobody is thinking of welfare or public school", which I do believe is a valid complaint.
However, the gist of Steve's argument is dead-on, in my opinion; namely that what tends to turn people against the idea of anything is when it's imposed on them by fiat.
In our government, the structure is set up as a reaction to a monarchical form of government; through the election process, particularly in the executive and legislative branches, the government is "by the people and for the people". However, what we also have is a branch -- the judiciary -- which by design is meant to hover above the fray and not be directly subject to the whims of the masses. Judges are encouraged to be unknown to the public, to avoid making appearances and statements, and to reject input on their decisions from the general populace. Simply stated, they don't ask your opinion -- they give you theirs, and that's final.
As any manager of employees or projects can tell you, people support that which they help to create and resist that which they do not. Think about how we react at work or at home when we are told to do something or to carry out orders that we feel are completely arbitrary. The natural response is to look for flaws and holes -- or, put differently, reasons not to do something. Worse, these natural responses are usually based, not on the idea itself, but on one's perceptions of it -- which more often than not are not rational and/or factually-based.
Given that knowledge, should it surprise anyone that people would be inclined to distrust and oppose judicial decisions? Would one not expect that people who feel put-upon by the judge's unilateral action, even though they may not oppose it per se, act to limit the judge's power?
My experience with the sodomy law in Texas was very similar. Most people didn't know it existed, and if they did, thought it was kind of dumb, especially since it was so rarely enforced. But the thing they thought was even dumber was the courts telling Texas how to run itself -- exactly what happened in Lawrence v. Texas. What could have been handled directly with a legislative change was instead ramrodded through -- and the backlash left gay rights in even worse shape than before.
What the information portends is that there likely will be a sea change in attitudes towards gays politically over the next one to two decades. It's come about and will continue because thousands of gays throughout the country have been willing to present a view of gays that isn't anything like what "gay activists" (or, ironically, the antigay forces) wanted people to see -- namely, that gays are normal people just like everyone else.
This change isn't because of ACT UP desecrating churches, or gays throwing used condoms, or NGLTF and HRC forking over tens of millions of dollars to the DNC's homophobic leaders and candidates. It isn't because of "gay leaders" making hundreds of thousands of dollars by peddling gays as cannon fodder for unpopular leftist groups. Most importantly, it absolutely isn't because "gay activists" have avoided voters and gone shopping for non-hostile courts to impose their will on a disgruntled public.
Keep doing those, and we'll stay spinning in place.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Well, I'd Be Willing to Entertain Offers...
It was a fine and sunny (albeit windy) day here today, so I figured I'd lovingly wash the car that you, my dear readers, helped pick, albeit with a few bumps along the way.
As I was poking through the glovebox and console detritus, I found my driving map from the trip out here from Dallas. The stop, start, and end points were all carefully marked with the distance covered and odometer reading -- including the final, "San Francisco, February 16th, 9147 miles".
I looked up at the odometer -- now reading all of 9,456 miles. Only three hundred miles -- in three months of living here.
During my last summer in graduate school, I managed three hundred miles in three days. Having grown up and lived in the Great Plains, where runs to the store are measured in hours and trains only carry grain from the elevator, I am a child of the automobile. I learned how to drive when I was six, and from that point forward, did -- regularly and often.
Here, though, matters are different. Theoretically, I CAN drive to work, but when it's $5 bridge toll, $7 per garage day, $6 of gas, and enormous amounts of personal aggravation, the mile-and-a-quarter walk to BART and the 22 minute, $3-each-way ride looks pretty darn good. Cardio, environmental consciousness, and ease rolled into one -- and to top it off, the money I spend for passes can be tax-deferred. Sure, there are drawbacks -- like when the system hiccups and leaves you stranded for hours on the wrong side of the Bay -- but by and large, I'm not looking back.
So, my lovely little Mazda languishes, invigorated only by trips to the gym and grocery runs. Indeed, I'm even considering whether or not, since the husbear has one, if I even need a car.
If you had told me that two years ago, I would have laughed. Laid down on the ground, kicked my heels, screamed, and laughed.
As I was poking through the glovebox and console detritus, I found my driving map from the trip out here from Dallas. The stop, start, and end points were all carefully marked with the distance covered and odometer reading -- including the final, "San Francisco, February 16th, 9147 miles".
I looked up at the odometer -- now reading all of 9,456 miles. Only three hundred miles -- in three months of living here.
During my last summer in graduate school, I managed three hundred miles in three days. Having grown up and lived in the Great Plains, where runs to the store are measured in hours and trains only carry grain from the elevator, I am a child of the automobile. I learned how to drive when I was six, and from that point forward, did -- regularly and often.
Here, though, matters are different. Theoretically, I CAN drive to work, but when it's $5 bridge toll, $7 per garage day, $6 of gas, and enormous amounts of personal aggravation, the mile-and-a-quarter walk to BART and the 22 minute, $3-each-way ride looks pretty darn good. Cardio, environmental consciousness, and ease rolled into one -- and to top it off, the money I spend for passes can be tax-deferred. Sure, there are drawbacks -- like when the system hiccups and leaves you stranded for hours on the wrong side of the Bay -- but by and large, I'm not looking back.
So, my lovely little Mazda languishes, invigorated only by trips to the gym and grocery runs. Indeed, I'm even considering whether or not, since the husbear has one, if I even need a car.
If you had told me that two years ago, I would have laughed. Laid down on the ground, kicked my heels, screamed, and laughed.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Priorities....Priorities
In news today, the California Senate voted yesterday to mandate the teaching of the historical contributions of homosexuals.
In related news, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freeman issued a ruling today blocking enforcement of the California state high school exit exam, agreeing lawyers who argued that hundreds of thousands of students were going to "substandard schools with unqualified teachers, insufficient textbooks, and squalid conditions".
This is of course, in regard to a test that students take as sophomores -- mainly because its two components, math and English proficiency, require a score of only 55% on math and 60% on English to pass and automatically be eligible to graduate. If they can't manage THAT, they get two more tries as juniors and three more tries as seniors, by which time you would think they would be able to pass an English test at tenth-grade level and a math test at a paltry eighth-grade level.
It's good to see that the Senate has its priorities straight. As long as students are required to learn about peoples' sex lives, it doesn't matter that they can't even manage junior-high-level math.
In related news, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freeman issued a ruling today blocking enforcement of the California state high school exit exam, agreeing lawyers who argued that hundreds of thousands of students were going to "substandard schools with unqualified teachers, insufficient textbooks, and squalid conditions".
This is of course, in regard to a test that students take as sophomores -- mainly because its two components, math and English proficiency, require a score of only 55% on math and 60% on English to pass and automatically be eligible to graduate. If they can't manage THAT, they get two more tries as juniors and three more tries as seniors, by which time you would think they would be able to pass an English test at tenth-grade level and a math test at a paltry eighth-grade level.
It's good to see that the Senate has its priorities straight. As long as students are required to learn about peoples' sex lives, it doesn't matter that they can't even manage junior-high-level math.
Whither San Francisco?
When I first announced that I was moving to San Francisco a year ago, there were several different reactions; however, the general one was something to the effect of, "Have you lost your marbles?"
With GayPatriot's announcement of yesterday that he was headed this way, regular commentor Michigan-Matt put into words what it seems many conservatives think about the Peoples' Republic.
Visiting SF has always been a dilemma for this gay Republican –no, a real dilemma (Dan). I see the kind of hostility the leadership of SF has toward our military, toward conservatism, toward mainstream American values and wonder how thinking people ever let SF get this bad. When I go there, I see chaos in the public transit, disdain for tourists, dirt in the streets, and reminders everywhere that the city is a testament to dysfunctional governance –and yet it continues! The nonsense about making a political statement against war, against American military history in favor of anti-imperialistic principles underscores how far SF has fallen into the abyss of decay. Why spend a dime there helping to indirectly prop-up the failure?
From a distance, the city is beautiful –on a rare sunny day, something akin to RR’s shining city on the hill. But when I get there, tranverse the city, open the newspaper, listen to the news… it is so depressing that something with such potential is allowed to wallow in inferiority and neglect and failed vision. Is civic pride in such short supply?
After living here for a few months, I can say that Matt's characterization is to a great deal correct. Day-to-day operations and activity in The City are a crazy-quilt mess, driven by identity politics and a schizophrenic tendency to champion "individual rights" while enacting even harsher regulations ("Let's ban smoking indoors AND outdoors!"). If another large enough earthquake comes, The City will be leveled -- and if you thought New Orleans's response to Katrina was disorganized, you haven't seen anything yet.
What keeps this city alive, though, is twofold -- its sinews and the people who live in it.
The 1906 earthquake, while it for all intents and purposes leveled the city, also provided the impetus to start over and fix what local leaders already knew to be broken. Out went the corrupt Gilded Age politicos, and in came the progressive leaders like Mayor "Sunny Jim" Rolph and City Engineer M.M. O'Shaughnessy. Over the next three decades, these leaders constructed on the blank canvas of the ruined city a stupendous and colossal infrastructure -- the Muni railway network, the Hetch Hetchy water and hydropower complexes and systems, the advanced sewers -- that not only met the needs of the time, but looked forward to the future, aided by the fact that geography prevents San Francisco from growing beyond a clearly-defined set of parameters. By and large, the systems that make the city of 2006 function were completed over 70 years ago and are still fully operational today.
In addition, San Francisco is a cash cow, just by virtue of where it is. Face it, we're gorgeous, and we know it. Tourism is the number-one industry in the city -- not just tourists from the US, but people from around the world, who come by the millions to see Fisherman's Wharf, shop at Ghirardelli Square, and watch the sunset from the Golden Gate. As the real-estate mavens go, location is everything, and San Fran has it in spades.
However, because of this embarras de richesse of inherited wealth, San Francisco has become the Paris Hilton of cities -- spoiled, self-centered, and clueless. Because the infrastructure systems work so well, city politicos have felt free to divert the money that would ordinarily be earmarked for their maintenance and improvement into pet baubles -- or, more precisely, influence-buying among special-interest groups. Furthermore, like Ms. Hilton, dear S. Fran, under the influence of the low-oxygen atmosphere in City Hall, is under the delusion that people love her for her political posturing, not for her body -- so she feels free to demand impeachment of the President while her chest and shapely rump fill up with human and other flotsam and jetsam.
It is obvious to almost every resident of The City that San Francisco exists by the grace of the San Andreas and Hayward faults -- and if either of those stop liking us, San Francisco may be red-tagged for the better part of a half-century. But by and large, we residents of "The City That Knows How" have learned to treat our politicians and byzantine legal codes as we do the hills -- as the interminable price we pay of living in one of the most unique, scenic, and vibrant areas in the world.
For me, sure, I could do without the daily sense of exasperation I get from reading the Chronicle and Examiner, as well as seeing the tangle of signs and fouled-up construction, the rampant and endemic homelessness and dirt, and the protestors walking up and down the street who have never known hardship greater than losing the soles on their favorite Birkenstocks.
But the grandeur of the fog blowing over Twin Peaks.....the sunlight on the Pacific and the Golden Gate from Land's End.....rows after rows of stately, beautiful Painted Ladies on my drive to the gym....and the sense as I walk down Castro and up 24th Street of being here, of being part of such a fusion of natural and manmade wonders.....those make living here all worthwhile.
Hugs to you, San Francisco.
With GayPatriot's announcement of yesterday that he was headed this way, regular commentor Michigan-Matt put into words what it seems many conservatives think about the Peoples' Republic.
Visiting SF has always been a dilemma for this gay Republican –no, a real dilemma (Dan). I see the kind of hostility the leadership of SF has toward our military, toward conservatism, toward mainstream American values and wonder how thinking people ever let SF get this bad. When I go there, I see chaos in the public transit, disdain for tourists, dirt in the streets, and reminders everywhere that the city is a testament to dysfunctional governance –and yet it continues! The nonsense about making a political statement against war, against American military history in favor of anti-imperialistic principles underscores how far SF has fallen into the abyss of decay. Why spend a dime there helping to indirectly prop-up the failure?
From a distance, the city is beautiful –on a rare sunny day, something akin to RR’s shining city on the hill. But when I get there, tranverse the city, open the newspaper, listen to the news… it is so depressing that something with such potential is allowed to wallow in inferiority and neglect and failed vision. Is civic pride in such short supply?
After living here for a few months, I can say that Matt's characterization is to a great deal correct. Day-to-day operations and activity in The City are a crazy-quilt mess, driven by identity politics and a schizophrenic tendency to champion "individual rights" while enacting even harsher regulations ("Let's ban smoking indoors AND outdoors!"). If another large enough earthquake comes, The City will be leveled -- and if you thought New Orleans's response to Katrina was disorganized, you haven't seen anything yet.
What keeps this city alive, though, is twofold -- its sinews and the people who live in it.
The 1906 earthquake, while it for all intents and purposes leveled the city, also provided the impetus to start over and fix what local leaders already knew to be broken. Out went the corrupt Gilded Age politicos, and in came the progressive leaders like Mayor "Sunny Jim" Rolph and City Engineer M.M. O'Shaughnessy. Over the next three decades, these leaders constructed on the blank canvas of the ruined city a stupendous and colossal infrastructure -- the Muni railway network, the Hetch Hetchy water and hydropower complexes and systems, the advanced sewers -- that not only met the needs of the time, but looked forward to the future, aided by the fact that geography prevents San Francisco from growing beyond a clearly-defined set of parameters. By and large, the systems that make the city of 2006 function were completed over 70 years ago and are still fully operational today.
In addition, San Francisco is a cash cow, just by virtue of where it is. Face it, we're gorgeous, and we know it. Tourism is the number-one industry in the city -- not just tourists from the US, but people from around the world, who come by the millions to see Fisherman's Wharf, shop at Ghirardelli Square, and watch the sunset from the Golden Gate. As the real-estate mavens go, location is everything, and San Fran has it in spades.
However, because of this embarras de richesse of inherited wealth, San Francisco has become the Paris Hilton of cities -- spoiled, self-centered, and clueless. Because the infrastructure systems work so well, city politicos have felt free to divert the money that would ordinarily be earmarked for their maintenance and improvement into pet baubles -- or, more precisely, influence-buying among special-interest groups. Furthermore, like Ms. Hilton, dear S. Fran, under the influence of the low-oxygen atmosphere in City Hall, is under the delusion that people love her for her political posturing, not for her body -- so she feels free to demand impeachment of the President while her chest and shapely rump fill up with human and other flotsam and jetsam.
It is obvious to almost every resident of The City that San Francisco exists by the grace of the San Andreas and Hayward faults -- and if either of those stop liking us, San Francisco may be red-tagged for the better part of a half-century. But by and large, we residents of "The City That Knows How" have learned to treat our politicians and byzantine legal codes as we do the hills -- as the interminable price we pay of living in one of the most unique, scenic, and vibrant areas in the world.
For me, sure, I could do without the daily sense of exasperation I get from reading the Chronicle and Examiner, as well as seeing the tangle of signs and fouled-up construction, the rampant and endemic homelessness and dirt, and the protestors walking up and down the street who have never known hardship greater than losing the soles on their favorite Birkenstocks.
But the grandeur of the fog blowing over Twin Peaks.....the sunlight on the Pacific and the Golden Gate from Land's End.....rows after rows of stately, beautiful Painted Ladies on my drive to the gym....and the sense as I walk down Castro and up 24th Street of being here, of being part of such a fusion of natural and manmade wonders.....those make living here all worthwhile.
Hugs to you, San Francisco.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Why Patience Is a Virtue
Some of you may recall how pissed I was at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for rejecting the mooring of the battleship Iowa for reasons that are, to put it bluntly, stupid.
As the turn of events has revealed, though, karma is far friendlier than one can expect; the oxygen-deprived decision of the BoS has created an even better opportunity.
What better place to put the Iowa than somewhere that would draw tourists away from San Francisco, recognize and reward the long-established naval tradition of a city, be within eyesight of the Board of Supervisors -- and be right in the face of the chief anti-military and pro-terrorist harridan who lives nearby?
As the turn of events has revealed, though, karma is far friendlier than one can expect; the oxygen-deprived decision of the BoS has created an even better opportunity.
What better place to put the Iowa than somewhere that would draw tourists away from San Francisco, recognize and reward the long-established naval tradition of a city, be within eyesight of the Board of Supervisors -- and be right in the face of the chief anti-military and pro-terrorist harridan who lives nearby?
Honey, The Burritos Are Glowing
Since Husbear is out of town on business this week (DC, for those of you who absolutely must know), I have moved my workstation downstairs to the kitchen. This has less to do with easy access to snacks than it does in keeping his mini-macaw, domiciled therein, from shrieking her discontent -- and by doing so, protecting my sanity.
However, this has brought up an interesting point:
Q: When do you know it is time for a new microwave?
A: When running the old one knocks you off the wireless network.
However, this has brought up an interesting point:
Q: When do you know it is time for a new microwave?
A: When running the old one knocks you off the wireless network.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
When You Get Married, You'll Understand
The results of this survey should come as a shock to no one who a) is in a long-term relationship of any type or b) has been a gay man for more than two weeks.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Message to Gay Democrats
Speak your mind and we'll hurt your family.
UPDATE: John Aravosis posts criticism of Howard Dean's actions -- and proceeds to get pistol-whipped in the comments, usually accompanied with an insinuation that Donald Hitchcock, after years of service, is suddenly incompetent to do his job.
Like I previously said, though......
UPDATE: John Aravosis posts criticism of Howard Dean's actions -- and proceeds to get pistol-whipped in the comments, usually accompanied with an insinuation that Donald Hitchcock, after years of service, is suddenly incompetent to do his job.
Like I previously said, though......
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Mr. Saletan, If You Please.....
It's nice to see one's idea recognized -- but I think William Saletan owes me a royalty.
(h/t Pam's House Blend)
(h/t Pam's House Blend)
Friday, April 28, 2006
Conservative to Bishop: Thank You, Hell No
Fellow conserva-blogger Boi from Troy reported today on Bishop Gene Robinson's speech before the Liberty Education Forum in Philadelphia, in which the Bishop exhorted the audience as follows:
Calling religion, “the greatest source of our oppression,” the openly-practicing-homosexual clergyman called upon religious gays and lesbians to “come out as religious.”
Only religious people can combat the assault on gay by people who claim to be religious, so Robinson advises to, “come out as religious…and become a teacher.”
Gee. Bishop, I'd love to, but I simply haven't a thing to wear to my funeral.
No, it's not that the religious folks would get me; it's the reception I'd get from other gays.
If you are ever stumped and need synonyms for a speech or a sermon, go to any gay blog and post anonymously about the importance of faith in your life and following Christ's example. Odds are, you will be overwhelmed by the sheer generosity of the other commenters in providing you a veritable freshet of words that mean "ignorant", "backward", and "superstitious". Don't be surprised if they come up with a few pet names for you as well; "Jewish Nazi" tends to be most common, but the occasional "Uncle Tom" sneaks in as well, demonstrating the gay community's remarkable commitment to diversity in insult while completely avoiding it in thought.
Were we all at least paid the same degree of lip service respect that you are, Bishop, we might also believe that the solution is for religious gays to go educate the masses. But what you fail to recognize is that the reason you aren't treated the same way as we are isn't because of the magnamity of the gay community towards religion; it's because they need a token or two to cloak the fact that a) the gay community's attitude towards religion is, to be kind, radically different than the majority of Americans, and b) that a) is a big part of why we keep losing the public relations and political battles.
Most of us who are religious and gay have had to go out of our way to convince our fellow members that we're not going to storm down the aisle and piss in the Communion cup, wear garish rainbow sashes, toss used condoms at parishoners, teach in Sunday school that the reason John was the "the disciple who Jesus loved" was because of what he had under his robe, or blame them for every problem in our lives from low self-esteem to bald spots.
This is not because they imagine these things; it's because they've seen the self-appointed guardians and arbiters of "gay" practice that and more on TV, radio, website, newspaper, magazine, tabloid, eight-track, and six-cassette book on tape as read by James Earl Jones.
So in short, Bishop, it's not that too few of us aren't out as religious; it's that too many of us are far too eager to associate "gay rights" with whatever anti-religious action tends to take their fancy. And frankly, those of us who ARE out as religious are getting a mite tired of all the abuse we're taking from them.
I believe it was the Man Himself who said, "Take the log out of your own eye before going after the speck in your buddy's."
When you say that to the gathered leaders of HRC, NGLTF, LCR, and others who are asking you to provide them religious cover, then we'll talk.
Calling religion, “the greatest source of our oppression,” the openly-practicing-homosexual clergyman called upon religious gays and lesbians to “come out as religious.”
Only religious people can combat the assault on gay by people who claim to be religious, so Robinson advises to, “come out as religious…and become a teacher.”
Gee. Bishop, I'd love to, but I simply haven't a thing to wear to my funeral.
No, it's not that the religious folks would get me; it's the reception I'd get from other gays.
If you are ever stumped and need synonyms for a speech or a sermon, go to any gay blog and post anonymously about the importance of faith in your life and following Christ's example. Odds are, you will be overwhelmed by the sheer generosity of the other commenters in providing you a veritable freshet of words that mean "ignorant", "backward", and "superstitious". Don't be surprised if they come up with a few pet names for you as well; "Jewish Nazi" tends to be most common, but the occasional "Uncle Tom" sneaks in as well, demonstrating the gay community's remarkable commitment to diversity in insult while completely avoiding it in thought.
Were we all at least paid the same degree of lip service respect that you are, Bishop, we might also believe that the solution is for religious gays to go educate the masses. But what you fail to recognize is that the reason you aren't treated the same way as we are isn't because of the magnamity of the gay community towards religion; it's because they need a token or two to cloak the fact that a) the gay community's attitude towards religion is, to be kind, radically different than the majority of Americans, and b) that a) is a big part of why we keep losing the public relations and political battles.
Most of us who are religious and gay have had to go out of our way to convince our fellow members that we're not going to storm down the aisle and piss in the Communion cup, wear garish rainbow sashes, toss used condoms at parishoners, teach in Sunday school that the reason John was the "the disciple who Jesus loved" was because of what he had under his robe, or blame them for every problem in our lives from low self-esteem to bald spots.
This is not because they imagine these things; it's because they've seen the self-appointed guardians and arbiters of "gay" practice that and more on TV, radio, website, newspaper, magazine, tabloid, eight-track, and six-cassette book on tape as read by James Earl Jones.
So in short, Bishop, it's not that too few of us aren't out as religious; it's that too many of us are far too eager to associate "gay rights" with whatever anti-religious action tends to take their fancy. And frankly, those of us who ARE out as religious are getting a mite tired of all the abuse we're taking from them.
I believe it was the Man Himself who said, "Take the log out of your own eye before going after the speck in your buddy's."
When you say that to the gathered leaders of HRC, NGLTF, LCR, and others who are asking you to provide them religious cover, then we'll talk.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Breaking News
Tonight, since it was Dining Out For Life night here in San Francisco, I met my partner down in the Castro proper at Starbears (which, for those of you not familiar with our furry subculture, is the correct name for the Starbucks located on 18th Street at Castro), planning to go grab a bite to eat at one of the participating restaurant.
My husbear is an inveterate conversationalist, especially with other cute bears, and I was more than a bit impatient to get going, certain we were not going to get a table. Finally, he wrapped up, and we headed back up 18th to the Castro intersection. While we were waiting for the crosswalk signal, I turned to speak to one of our friends who had accompanied us to the corner.
Suddenly, from up Castro towards Market -- behind me -- I heard a noise -- squealing of brakes, the slamming of metal. I distinctly remember thinking, "Great, another grocery truck. Why do they always sound like they're falling apart?"
Then the loud BOOM of an explosion echoed down the street.
I spun instantly and saw the unthinkable; a car, facing us, going the wrong way on Castro, smashed hood and headlights...and off to one side raging angrily, an orange glow that immediately sent fear stabbing through my back at a remembered memory.....gasoline fire.
"Come on, get across," I said, grabbing my partner's arm as he stared at the fire, virtually pulling him across Castro, instincts driving me to move, get the hell away. In what seemed like an instant, we were across; I turned to look back -- and saw a long tongue of fire pouring down Castro, racing under the cars parked along the curb, their tires starting to smoke, running towards the corner on which, seconds ago, we had been standing
Fear gripped me. I expected a hail of exploding metal any second.
"Get moving! We've got to get AWAY from this!" Slowly I herded them up 18th, the crowds slowly backing away from the blazing inferno. Sirens wailed; the buzz of a news helicopter who happened to be in the right place at the right time echoed off the buildings as we ducked through the Walgreens's back parking lot and up Collingwood. The fire engines were racing down Market as we re-crossed Castro, and they were more than needed -- the smoke was thickly billowing over the front of businesses, the single engine that had instantly responded from the nearby house valiantly pumping foam onto the licking flames.
Later, after a nervous dinner at Blue, we walked back towards the Castro, not sure what we were going to see, worried about our friends, and fearing the worst.
At the corner, we met one of our acquaintances comforting another man, who gave us more details. As it turns out, the car facing the wrong way had turned left from Market onto Castro, running the red light, careened out of control, and struck a row of motorcycles. That had triggered the fire; the gas torn out of the bikes kept it going. His bike had been completely destroyed; others were badly damaged. One person who had been sitting in a parked car and was struck was confirmed dead; the driver of the wrecked car was badly injured. Fortunately, most people who had been on the sidewalk were able to get inside, into one of the near storefronts....it could have been a lot worse.
Crowds were gathered along the police tape as we crossed over to the west side of Castro, looking almost in disbelief at the damage. A row of cars were parked askew along the curb, hoods torn open, some with crumpled bodies, blackened with smoke and soot. Fuzio's looked OK, All-American Boy wasn't showing much damage, but the famous red awning above Clift's Variety Store, a Castro icon, was melted and falling, and the paint on the building was yellowed with the heat and fumes. Next to it, the white lettering on A Different Light's black awning was grayish and coated with charred particles.
As we stood there staring, my partner said very quietly, "Do you realize that we were just seconds away from walking right into the middle of that?"
We, and likely a few hundred others.
With the density of the Castro's population, plus the fact that it was a nice evening with several people out for the Dining Out for Life event, someone or something was definitely looking out for the homosexuals tonight. My sympathies and prayers are with the victims and their families.
A video of the fire and aftermath is on the Channel 5 site; the San Francisco Chronicle site has more details. I'll let you know more as information is made public.
My husbear is an inveterate conversationalist, especially with other cute bears, and I was more than a bit impatient to get going, certain we were not going to get a table. Finally, he wrapped up, and we headed back up 18th to the Castro intersection. While we were waiting for the crosswalk signal, I turned to speak to one of our friends who had accompanied us to the corner.
Suddenly, from up Castro towards Market -- behind me -- I heard a noise -- squealing of brakes, the slamming of metal. I distinctly remember thinking, "Great, another grocery truck. Why do they always sound like they're falling apart?"
Then the loud BOOM of an explosion echoed down the street.
I spun instantly and saw the unthinkable; a car, facing us, going the wrong way on Castro, smashed hood and headlights...and off to one side raging angrily, an orange glow that immediately sent fear stabbing through my back at a remembered memory.....gasoline fire.
"Come on, get across," I said, grabbing my partner's arm as he stared at the fire, virtually pulling him across Castro, instincts driving me to move, get the hell away. In what seemed like an instant, we were across; I turned to look back -- and saw a long tongue of fire pouring down Castro, racing under the cars parked along the curb, their tires starting to smoke, running towards the corner on which, seconds ago, we had been standing
Fear gripped me. I expected a hail of exploding metal any second.
"Get moving! We've got to get AWAY from this!" Slowly I herded them up 18th, the crowds slowly backing away from the blazing inferno. Sirens wailed; the buzz of a news helicopter who happened to be in the right place at the right time echoed off the buildings as we ducked through the Walgreens's back parking lot and up Collingwood. The fire engines were racing down Market as we re-crossed Castro, and they were more than needed -- the smoke was thickly billowing over the front of businesses, the single engine that had instantly responded from the nearby house valiantly pumping foam onto the licking flames.
Later, after a nervous dinner at Blue, we walked back towards the Castro, not sure what we were going to see, worried about our friends, and fearing the worst.
At the corner, we met one of our acquaintances comforting another man, who gave us more details. As it turns out, the car facing the wrong way had turned left from Market onto Castro, running the red light, careened out of control, and struck a row of motorcycles. That had triggered the fire; the gas torn out of the bikes kept it going. His bike had been completely destroyed; others were badly damaged. One person who had been sitting in a parked car and was struck was confirmed dead; the driver of the wrecked car was badly injured. Fortunately, most people who had been on the sidewalk were able to get inside, into one of the near storefronts....it could have been a lot worse.
Crowds were gathered along the police tape as we crossed over to the west side of Castro, looking almost in disbelief at the damage. A row of cars were parked askew along the curb, hoods torn open, some with crumpled bodies, blackened with smoke and soot. Fuzio's looked OK, All-American Boy wasn't showing much damage, but the famous red awning above Clift's Variety Store, a Castro icon, was melted and falling, and the paint on the building was yellowed with the heat and fumes. Next to it, the white lettering on A Different Light's black awning was grayish and coated with charred particles.
As we stood there staring, my partner said very quietly, "Do you realize that we were just seconds away from walking right into the middle of that?"
We, and likely a few hundred others.
With the density of the Castro's population, plus the fact that it was a nice evening with several people out for the Dining Out for Life event, someone or something was definitely looking out for the homosexuals tonight. My sympathies and prayers are with the victims and their families.
A video of the fire and aftermath is on the Channel 5 site; the San Francisco Chronicle site has more details. I'll let you know more as information is made public.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Castro Culture Conservation
Fellow Californian and occasional SF visitor Boi from Troy pointed out an article from the Friday edition of the Los Angeles Times outlining the ongoing tug of war between those who want San Francisco's legendary (or notorious) Castro district to take a cold shower and those who want it to stay up, as it were.
Both he and erstwhile City resident Dunner are of the mind that the Castro ought to be left as-is in its bound-and-gagged glory, Dunner weighing in as such:
I think the best point of view in the story comes from a publisher of a magazine for same-sex parents:
"That culture existed long before they arrived," said Angeline Acain, a New Yorker who's editor and publisher of Gay Parent, a nationally circulated magazine. "If you see a window display you find offensive, don't take your kid down that block."
Along those lines, Dunner brings up a potential solution:
But instead of fighting the well-known tradition of the Castro in choosing to live there, why not raise your kids in any other of San Francisco's beautiful neighborhoods?
This isn't a bad thought, and it certainly might work well for some people.
However, to me, the tradition of the Castro is about much more than the sex shops; it's about the culture of openness, freedom, and community of which those shops are a part. The Castro has always been a neighborhood where, no matter what you were, black, white, Jewish, Christian, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, gay or lesbian, you were able to be out and be yourself. Even more so, it truly is a gay shtetl; everyone knows everybody (for better or worse) and watches out for each other.
While sex is very much a part of gay culture just by the simple fact that it is what defines us as gay, there's far more involved in the history and tradition of the Castro than that. Every other permutation of gay exists and thrives here; indeed, I think it's selling us short to be less than completely opening and welcome to parents and their children, straight OR gay. Being a parent is not easy in the first place, and I frankly hate the thought of gay parents being forced to self-exile from our community and the support structure it represents because they're not comfortable with their kids seeing naughty window displays.
So what's the solution?
I agree that the basic idea is, as stated above, for parents to avoid displays that they find offensive. However, what I would point out is that it would help if one knew that BEFORE one walked down the block. Perhaps what is needed is for merchants to get together and devise a handy "ratings system", marked where one could see it at crosswalks. Blocks that wanted to be "family friendly" could limit window and front-of-store displays as they saw fit; blocks that didn't mind would be marked appropriately as advance warning.
Not only would this help parents with kids, it would also help tourists (of which the Castro seems to be getting more lately) and other visitors, who may not wish to see as much "local color" as one can get here. Finally, it's a nice touch from a PR standpoint, showing that the gay community is concerned about what's portrayed publicly and is willing to help accomodate those of differing views.
Bevan Dufty, are you listening?
Both he and erstwhile City resident Dunner are of the mind that the Castro ought to be left as-is in its bound-and-gagged glory, Dunner weighing in as such:
I think the best point of view in the story comes from a publisher of a magazine for same-sex parents:
"That culture existed long before they arrived," said Angeline Acain, a New Yorker who's editor and publisher of Gay Parent, a nationally circulated magazine. "If you see a window display you find offensive, don't take your kid down that block."
Along those lines, Dunner brings up a potential solution:
But instead of fighting the well-known tradition of the Castro in choosing to live there, why not raise your kids in any other of San Francisco's beautiful neighborhoods?
This isn't a bad thought, and it certainly might work well for some people.
However, to me, the tradition of the Castro is about much more than the sex shops; it's about the culture of openness, freedom, and community of which those shops are a part. The Castro has always been a neighborhood where, no matter what you were, black, white, Jewish, Christian, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, gay or lesbian, you were able to be out and be yourself. Even more so, it truly is a gay shtetl; everyone knows everybody (for better or worse) and watches out for each other.
While sex is very much a part of gay culture just by the simple fact that it is what defines us as gay, there's far more involved in the history and tradition of the Castro than that. Every other permutation of gay exists and thrives here; indeed, I think it's selling us short to be less than completely opening and welcome to parents and their children, straight OR gay. Being a parent is not easy in the first place, and I frankly hate the thought of gay parents being forced to self-exile from our community and the support structure it represents because they're not comfortable with their kids seeing naughty window displays.
So what's the solution?
I agree that the basic idea is, as stated above, for parents to avoid displays that they find offensive. However, what I would point out is that it would help if one knew that BEFORE one walked down the block. Perhaps what is needed is for merchants to get together and devise a handy "ratings system", marked where one could see it at crosswalks. Blocks that wanted to be "family friendly" could limit window and front-of-store displays as they saw fit; blocks that didn't mind would be marked appropriately as advance warning.
Not only would this help parents with kids, it would also help tourists (of which the Castro seems to be getting more lately) and other visitors, who may not wish to see as much "local color" as one can get here. Finally, it's a nice touch from a PR standpoint, showing that the gay community is concerned about what's portrayed publicly and is willing to help accomodate those of differing views.
Bevan Dufty, are you listening?
Friday, April 21, 2006
Those Who Live in Glass Condos....
Interesting news coming out of DC today; seems the senior Democrat on the House Ethics Committee has temporarily stepped down under growing allegations of financial misconduct
Of course, Nancy Pelosi swooped in immediately to denounce the charges.
While Mollohan's troubles threaten to become a major campaign problem for Democrats, Pelosi, of California, said in a statement that Mollohan decided on his own to step down and that she accepted his decision.
"The allegations against Congressman Mollohan originate from the National Legal and Policy Center, which engages in highly partisan attacks on Democrats," Pelosi said.
Such as when they caught her with her hand in the cookie jar.
Of course, this isn't the first time Pelosi has been found to be breaking rules that she herself championed; however, instead of arguing that the rules are far too byzantine as they stand (a reasonable charge), she simply tries to weasel out.
Fortunately, my vote now counts in HER elections. (evil grin)
Of course, Nancy Pelosi swooped in immediately to denounce the charges.
While Mollohan's troubles threaten to become a major campaign problem for Democrats, Pelosi, of California, said in a statement that Mollohan decided on his own to step down and that she accepted his decision.
"The allegations against Congressman Mollohan originate from the National Legal and Policy Center, which engages in highly partisan attacks on Democrats," Pelosi said.
Such as when they caught her with her hand in the cookie jar.
Of course, this isn't the first time Pelosi has been found to be breaking rules that she herself championed; however, instead of arguing that the rules are far too byzantine as they stand (a reasonable charge), she simply tries to weasel out.
Fortunately, my vote now counts in HER elections. (evil grin)
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Our Newest Public Service
Having made the formal announcement of my move to San Francisco just in time for a certain episode of South Park, the good-natured abuse commentary from various points has been rather overwhelming.
So, in the age-old tradition of making lemonade out of sticks and ditchwater, I present to you the Official SFCA Smug Alert Warning System. This highly-scientific analysis crunches the numbers to determine on a regular basis the level of smug in the Bay Area's atmosphere, all the way from humble to hyper-narcisstic, and is communicated to you in a handy color-coded analysis on our sidebar -- with pictures of everyone's favorite smug-generating phenomena!
So sit back and relax, secure in the knowledge that, when the next smug front begins to gather....you'll be ready!
So, in the age-old tradition of making lemonade out of sticks and ditchwater, I present to you the Official SFCA Smug Alert Warning System. This highly-scientific analysis crunches the numbers to determine on a regular basis the level of smug in the Bay Area's atmosphere, all the way from humble to hyper-narcisstic, and is communicated to you in a handy color-coded analysis on our sidebar -- with pictures of everyone's favorite smug-generating phenomena!
So sit back and relax, secure in the knowledge that, when the next smug front begins to gather....you'll be ready!
Monday, April 17, 2006
What's Really Important
Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of the Great Quake -- the almost complete destruction of the city of San Francisco by a massive temblor and resulting fire.
As one might expect, the city has been gearing up for this for months, with exhibits, memorials, and other events outlining the damages, the suffering, and the immediate reaction and long-term consequences of the disaster. If you've been watching The History Channel or other such networks, you've seen or will be seeing numerous retrospectives.
Like it or not, San Francisco lives both in spite of and because of the 1906 quake. The utter devastation of much of the city laid open a path for a complete infrastructure redesign and restructuring, led by visionary mayors and city engineers, that laid the groundwork capable even today of supporting a city whose needs were scarcely even imagined when it was built. The ability of leaders today to engage in needless bickering and posturing is due in no small part to the fact that they don't have to worry about mundane day-to-day operations; all that was anticipated when the city was built.
However, that relative lack of worry has transformed into a singular lack of concern about seismic activity, despite the fact that the Bay Area represents one of the most densely-populated and built-upon fault areas on the planet. Not one, not two, but eight faults cross the region -- yet, even with the reminder of the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, the contracts for seismic retrofit and reinforcement of the Bay Bridge and Transbay Tunnel have either just been or are about to be awarded.
Contracts, folks. Not construction or completion, despite the fact that the two public works in question move literally hundreds of thousands of vehicles and people on a daily basis and were compromised almost to the point of collapsing fifteen years ago.
You can go on and on -- the building codes that weren't revised until the late '70s, the drive to get rid of San Francisco's fireboats despite the fact that they represent the only way of reliably getting water to fires in the absence of mains -- you get the idea. But I think a far better way of showing it are the projections of what could happen if a similar quake struck today.
Pretty sobering.
What amuses (or appalls) me is this state's priorities. Spending billions of dollars on universal preschool is all well and good, but that will be little comfort to four-year-olds when they don't see their parents for weeks -- because they were unlucky enough to be on opposite sides of the Bay when the Tube and Bay Bridge collapsed. The irony, of course, is that universal preschool will then be unnecessary -- given that, without transit links, city services, and other things, their parents will now have plenty of time to spend on them, since their jobs and companies will have dried up and blown away. It will be interesting to see how San Francisco's cottage protest industry survives once city government is forced to actually spend money on work rather than on pandering, or how its constant avoidance of efficiency by raising tax rates manages when half of the property in the city is erased.
More than all that, it makes me mad. If a quake comes, right now, there are three possibilities; one, I'm at home and safe, two, I'm at work and stuck in Oakland, and three, I'm in transit and hoping a 40-year-old system that's already been strained by one earthquake survives a second one long enough to get me out of it.
Two out of the three have me separated from my partner, likely unable to communicate with him, and wondering whether he's alive or dead.
That tends to reorder what you think is important. Perhaps it's time Nunez, the Assembly, Schwarzenegger, and others remembered that.
As one might expect, the city has been gearing up for this for months, with exhibits, memorials, and other events outlining the damages, the suffering, and the immediate reaction and long-term consequences of the disaster. If you've been watching The History Channel or other such networks, you've seen or will be seeing numerous retrospectives.
Like it or not, San Francisco lives both in spite of and because of the 1906 quake. The utter devastation of much of the city laid open a path for a complete infrastructure redesign and restructuring, led by visionary mayors and city engineers, that laid the groundwork capable even today of supporting a city whose needs were scarcely even imagined when it was built. The ability of leaders today to engage in needless bickering and posturing is due in no small part to the fact that they don't have to worry about mundane day-to-day operations; all that was anticipated when the city was built.
However, that relative lack of worry has transformed into a singular lack of concern about seismic activity, despite the fact that the Bay Area represents one of the most densely-populated and built-upon fault areas on the planet. Not one, not two, but eight faults cross the region -- yet, even with the reminder of the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, the contracts for seismic retrofit and reinforcement of the Bay Bridge and Transbay Tunnel have either just been or are about to be awarded.
Contracts, folks. Not construction or completion, despite the fact that the two public works in question move literally hundreds of thousands of vehicles and people on a daily basis and were compromised almost to the point of collapsing fifteen years ago.
You can go on and on -- the building codes that weren't revised until the late '70s, the drive to get rid of San Francisco's fireboats despite the fact that they represent the only way of reliably getting water to fires in the absence of mains -- you get the idea. But I think a far better way of showing it are the projections of what could happen if a similar quake struck today.
Pretty sobering.
What amuses (or appalls) me is this state's priorities. Spending billions of dollars on universal preschool is all well and good, but that will be little comfort to four-year-olds when they don't see their parents for weeks -- because they were unlucky enough to be on opposite sides of the Bay when the Tube and Bay Bridge collapsed. The irony, of course, is that universal preschool will then be unnecessary -- given that, without transit links, city services, and other things, their parents will now have plenty of time to spend on them, since their jobs and companies will have dried up and blown away. It will be interesting to see how San Francisco's cottage protest industry survives once city government is forced to actually spend money on work rather than on pandering, or how its constant avoidance of efficiency by raising tax rates manages when half of the property in the city is erased.
More than all that, it makes me mad. If a quake comes, right now, there are three possibilities; one, I'm at home and safe, two, I'm at work and stuck in Oakland, and three, I'm in transit and hoping a 40-year-old system that's already been strained by one earthquake survives a second one long enough to get me out of it.
Two out of the three have me separated from my partner, likely unable to communicate with him, and wondering whether he's alive or dead.
That tends to reorder what you think is important. Perhaps it's time Nunez, the Assembly, Schwarzenegger, and others remembered that.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Tea for Tomorrow
Of the comments I received on Wednesday's post concerning the relative ignorance, real or studied, of "gay rights" groups toward the amendment process and how it negatively affects our strategies, one in particular, from Gryph of Gryphmon's Grumbles, stands out:
As far as your statements on the gay community and public relations, there is a great deal of truth to it. But you also seem to think that if everyone just sits down together and has a nice cup of tea and discusses the issue that everyone will come around to your point of view. Thats unrealistic.
Just as there are some really nasty people out there that really would do deliberate harm to kittens, there really are people that "hate" gay people. And they are for the most part not wearing sheets and swastikas.
Of course there are. Probability, logic, and psychology dictate that there will be people out there who have an irrational fear of homosexuals; even more so, there will be people out there for whom hatred and loathing of gay people are so integral a part of their philosophy that changing that would be akin to dynamiting the foundation of a house to fix a structural problem. They'll be found in every clothes type from haute couture to hayseed, every education level from preschool to postgrad, every location from sea to shining sea, and every skin color across the spectrum.
Thus, it's perfectly logical to say that you can't bring everyone around to your point of view.
The problem with "gay activism", though, is that it is fixated on the small minority of those genuinely-dangerous antigay people who abuse religious or political ideology as an excuse for bad behavior.
To respond directly to Gryph's point, no, I don't expect everyone to come around to my viewpoint with a nice cup of tea and conversation. But I don't need them to come around to my exact viewpoint; all I need them to do is realize that the antigay folks are fixated on the small minority of genuinely-dangerous gay people who do abuse gay rights as an excuse for bad behavior.
Does that tactic sound familiar?
Real change in this country will not come until the vast middle realizes that we're being manipulated by con people on the left and right. Joe Solmonese, Elizabeth Birch, and other so-called "gay leaders" are no different than Jerry Falwell; all are unscrupulous and hypocritical con men who play on the fears of others to coerce behavior that enriches them and increases their power. Their calls for "unity" and their demonization of "the other side" are nothing more than cheap propaganda attempts to keep us chained and dependent so they can sell us and our votes to desperate politicians and unpopular interest groups.
Thus, I will continue to advocate for teatimes with straight people in the hopes that I learn from them and they from me. I will gladly gamble that I will meet far more erudite than extremists, and in the process tear numerous leashes from the fumbling fingers of the Falwell-esque.
As far as your statements on the gay community and public relations, there is a great deal of truth to it. But you also seem to think that if everyone just sits down together and has a nice cup of tea and discusses the issue that everyone will come around to your point of view. Thats unrealistic.
Just as there are some really nasty people out there that really would do deliberate harm to kittens, there really are people that "hate" gay people. And they are for the most part not wearing sheets and swastikas.
Of course there are. Probability, logic, and psychology dictate that there will be people out there who have an irrational fear of homosexuals; even more so, there will be people out there for whom hatred and loathing of gay people are so integral a part of their philosophy that changing that would be akin to dynamiting the foundation of a house to fix a structural problem. They'll be found in every clothes type from haute couture to hayseed, every education level from preschool to postgrad, every location from sea to shining sea, and every skin color across the spectrum.
Thus, it's perfectly logical to say that you can't bring everyone around to your point of view.
The problem with "gay activism", though, is that it is fixated on the small minority of those genuinely-dangerous antigay people who abuse religious or political ideology as an excuse for bad behavior.
To respond directly to Gryph's point, no, I don't expect everyone to come around to my viewpoint with a nice cup of tea and conversation. But I don't need them to come around to my exact viewpoint; all I need them to do is realize that the antigay folks are fixated on the small minority of genuinely-dangerous gay people who do abuse gay rights as an excuse for bad behavior.
Does that tactic sound familiar?
Real change in this country will not come until the vast middle realizes that we're being manipulated by con people on the left and right. Joe Solmonese, Elizabeth Birch, and other so-called "gay leaders" are no different than Jerry Falwell; all are unscrupulous and hypocritical con men who play on the fears of others to coerce behavior that enriches them and increases their power. Their calls for "unity" and their demonization of "the other side" are nothing more than cheap propaganda attempts to keep us chained and dependent so they can sell us and our votes to desperate politicians and unpopular interest groups.
Thus, I will continue to advocate for teatimes with straight people in the hopes that I learn from them and they from me. I will gladly gamble that I will meet far more erudite than extremists, and in the process tear numerous leashes from the fumbling fingers of the Falwell-esque.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Can You Say, "Amendment"?
I don't know if it's the air, the phase of the moon, or some kind of massive psycho-social-electro-hyper-magnetic-converging-consciousness event, but I have been asked the same question in several different variants today.
The clearest example, from commentor Brian Holmes over at Independent Gay Forum:
So, where, exactly, does the state get the authority to write the whims of the majority into law?
Um.... Article V, Constitution for the United States of America.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Read twice, make sure that it sinks into your consciousness.
What this means is that nothing is beyond the reach of a determined majority. The procedures outlined in Article V increase the requirements for enacting a change, but they never abrogate the point -- namely, that even the most fundamental law of our country is subject to "the whims of the majority".
Unfortunately, this is not a concept universally known, or even recognized, within the "gay community".
The reason why is relatively simple. Were the power of voters to be acknowledged, much of the gay community would have to come to grips with their attitudes towards them. Public contempt, hate, and mockery for them would become all too obviously a suicidal set of behaviors. The conflating of unrelated issues, such as unlimited abortion and removal of parental notifications, with gay rights would be exposed as counterproductive, inasmuch as it forces voters to choose between opposition to gay rights and support of these other issues.
In short, if they recognized this reality, "gay rights" groups and activists would have to focus on appealing to people with whom they don't agree in a mature and respectful fashion. Furthermore, they and their boards would have to forego their links with the organizations and groups that provide them handsome personal payments and cocktail-party invitations in exchange for supporting these groups' unpopular positions.
Pigs will fly first.
However, we'd better begin working on porcine aerodynamics, then, because the practical implications of this studied or real ignorance have been made all too clear over the past few years. Driven by the concern, real or imagined, that the judiciary will overturn state restrictions on gays and the fact that gay rights have been associated with leftist causes ranging from removal of parental rights to pedophilia, voters have repeatedly and in large margins rewritten fundamental law to put a stop to matters.
Rather a high price to pay for falling asleep in civics.
The clearest example, from commentor Brian Holmes over at Independent Gay Forum:
So, where, exactly, does the state get the authority to write the whims of the majority into law?
Um.... Article V, Constitution for the United States of America.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Read twice, make sure that it sinks into your consciousness.
What this means is that nothing is beyond the reach of a determined majority. The procedures outlined in Article V increase the requirements for enacting a change, but they never abrogate the point -- namely, that even the most fundamental law of our country is subject to "the whims of the majority".
Unfortunately, this is not a concept universally known, or even recognized, within the "gay community".
The reason why is relatively simple. Were the power of voters to be acknowledged, much of the gay community would have to come to grips with their attitudes towards them. Public contempt, hate, and mockery for them would become all too obviously a suicidal set of behaviors. The conflating of unrelated issues, such as unlimited abortion and removal of parental notifications, with gay rights would be exposed as counterproductive, inasmuch as it forces voters to choose between opposition to gay rights and support of these other issues.
In short, if they recognized this reality, "gay rights" groups and activists would have to focus on appealing to people with whom they don't agree in a mature and respectful fashion. Furthermore, they and their boards would have to forego their links with the organizations and groups that provide them handsome personal payments and cocktail-party invitations in exchange for supporting these groups' unpopular positions.
Pigs will fly first.
However, we'd better begin working on porcine aerodynamics, then, because the practical implications of this studied or real ignorance have been made all too clear over the past few years. Driven by the concern, real or imagined, that the judiciary will overturn state restrictions on gays and the fact that gay rights have been associated with leftist causes ranging from removal of parental rights to pedophilia, voters have repeatedly and in large margins rewritten fundamental law to put a stop to matters.
Rather a high price to pay for falling asleep in civics.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Sully's View
In the "Better Late Than Never" category, Andrew Sullivan had a post last week concerning the next "gay generation" and how some of them aren't taking well to the previous one.
Certainly his reader has some points. There are things that the "gay community" has done or enshrined as virtuous that have been at best damaging, and, at worst, devastating to the cause of gay acceptance. A reader writing in to GayPatriot this past week showed in stark detail how gays' public image is still negatively affected by extremists.
Whenever I see this sort of thing, though, I think back to a quote from Alexander Graham Bell; When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.
The gay community, in its own way, reflects the life struggles of each of its members. All of us have known pain, embarrassment, humiliation, and other experiences that seemed world-ending when they happened. If asked, very few of us would choose to voluntarily repeat these experience; if given the opportunity, we would gladly UNDO them.
But, the universe being what it is, that isn't an option. Disciplines from the most arcane of philosophies to the most prosaic of stain-removal instructions make it clear that nothing is ever completely reversed or undone. Every action leaves its indelible mark on that which it touches.
To Bell's point, we are then faced with two choices; do we mourn that which we had, or do we take that which we have been given?
Sullivan puts it best with this simple statement:
But life is a flawed journey; and the point, at least in my Catholic soul, is the struggle and forgiveness in that struggle.
I couldn't agree more. As I look back on my own life, there is much to regret; yet when viewed through Bell's prism, I would be less than I am now had these catastrophes not taken place. Each one forced me to take action, a step I'd been postponing, a choice I'd refused to make, an option that had never existed. There were plenty of blunders and false steps, but each marker on my pathway now stands for something -- a lesson learned and a richness added to my experience.
In the same fashion will the gay community learn and be richer for our experience.
Certainly his reader has some points. There are things that the "gay community" has done or enshrined as virtuous that have been at best damaging, and, at worst, devastating to the cause of gay acceptance. A reader writing in to GayPatriot this past week showed in stark detail how gays' public image is still negatively affected by extremists.
Whenever I see this sort of thing, though, I think back to a quote from Alexander Graham Bell; When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.
The gay community, in its own way, reflects the life struggles of each of its members. All of us have known pain, embarrassment, humiliation, and other experiences that seemed world-ending when they happened. If asked, very few of us would choose to voluntarily repeat these experience; if given the opportunity, we would gladly UNDO them.
But, the universe being what it is, that isn't an option. Disciplines from the most arcane of philosophies to the most prosaic of stain-removal instructions make it clear that nothing is ever completely reversed or undone. Every action leaves its indelible mark on that which it touches.
To Bell's point, we are then faced with two choices; do we mourn that which we had, or do we take that which we have been given?
Sullivan puts it best with this simple statement:
But life is a flawed journey; and the point, at least in my Catholic soul, is the struggle and forgiveness in that struggle.
I couldn't agree more. As I look back on my own life, there is much to regret; yet when viewed through Bell's prism, I would be less than I am now had these catastrophes not taken place. Each one forced me to take action, a step I'd been postponing, a choice I'd refused to make, an option that had never existed. There were plenty of blunders and false steps, but each marker on my pathway now stands for something -- a lesson learned and a richness added to my experience.
In the same fashion will the gay community learn and be richer for our experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)