12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong

Here's an oldie but a goodie, written way back in 2004. It's a humorous look at the arguments against gay marriage.

The full article can be found here, but I'm reprinting the entire list.

12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Our Mutual Joy

Heidi H., a reader and friend from Ohio, pointed this Newsweek article out to me nearly a week ago; I've just now gotten around to posting.

The author presents a very cohesive, well-documented and nicely thought-out argument in favor of gay marriage, pointing out many of the misconceptions and logical fallacies held by conservative Christians who claim that Jesus and the Bible only define marriage as being between a man and a woman. One of my favorite passages, at the beginning of the article, points out what many Biblical marriages were like, and asks the reader if he or she would truly like to base their own marriages on that model. It also makes a point of the fact that divorce is mentioned--and condemned--far more often in the Bible than is homosexuality.

Later, the author deals with the book of Leviticus, which many Christians turn to first when condemning homosexuality in general:

The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

The full article can be found here.

*****

On a personal note, I apologize to my readers (all three or four of you that I have evidence of so far, haha) for my recent neglect of this blog. Unfortunately, when an endeavor is the effort of a single person, real life sometimes supercedes cyberland. Rest assured that I have not been silent in my real world, even if I have been here. Hopefully things will get back to a calmer place in my life, and I'll be able to post more frequently. --DP

The creeping terror hiding inside your closet...is coming...to...your...town!!!

Amy H., one of my loyal readers (and LiveJournal friend) sent me this item:

The American Family Association has come out with a new video which they claim details the tactics used by "the gays" to further their agenda. Apparently, we have a diabolical plan in place to take over America, one city at a time. Sort of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, only with more style and flair.

Here is a trailer for the new video. Like Amy, I too thought that this might be a joke. Apparently, however, it's all too frighteningly real.




Yes, we Gays are dangerous folks. We go around demanding equal rights and wanting to marry the people we love and getting all uppity and in people's faces. We're dangerous. And we're evil...and WE'RE COMING TO YOUR TOWN!!!

If anyone out there has an actual copy of the Gay Agenda, I'd love it if you'd e-mail me a copy. I just want to make sure I'm in sync with the rest of the invasion force.

Celebrities and Proposition 8

Here are a few choice quotes from various celebrities in regard to Proposition 8:

Melissa Etheridge: "Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. Fifty-one percent of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now."

Composer Marc Shaiman: "I then told [Scott Eckern, Artistic Director of California Musical Theater] that the idea that money from his salary that was, in a small way, made from a production of HAIRSPRAY had now been put to use to pass this bigoted Proposition truly hurt and sickened me and that no future project of mine would ever play his theatre."

Sean Penn: "I think its one shameful aspect of where we are today … but I think that with time, common sense will prevail."

Margaret Cho: "The fact that there is now a ban on gay marriage just kills my spirit, hurts my heart. I was deputized as a marriage commissioner in San Francisco in June, and I got to marry a gay couple and a lesbian couple at city hall, and it was such an honor and a blessing, and we all wept through the entire thing."

Dana Delaney: "There is a difference between having civil union and marriage .. there's something about standing in front of your peers and your families and saying that this is serious and that you want to stay together."

Samantha Ronson: "Yes, i am glad that the chickens will have more room and better conditions as they wait to die, but i just think it's frightening that people show more compassion for tomorrow's dinner than for the chef."

And, just so we get a reminder that Hollywood isn't unanimous in its support of gays and lesbians:

Chuck Norris: "Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage."

What? I didn't say it was going to be an intelligent statement against gay marriage...

Whiny Prop. 8 supporter wants opponents to shut up and leave him alone...

John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle has written an op-ed piece about the backlash against the passing of Proposition 8. In it, he talks about a man who wrote a letter to the editor defending Prop. 8. The letter-writer's name and address were published, allowing the public to access information about his business, his website, his clients, etc. Since then, he has been the "victim" of harrassment from angry Prop. 8 opponents, who have picketed his business and basically made his life miserable.

"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told me last week. "It doesn't bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?"

Why, indeed? Perhaps this guy needs to receive an education in what gay people have had to deal with for years. Protests at their weddings, their funerals, their places of worship... Yes, we are "pretty damn courageous" to speak up for our rights. We would prefer not to go through this ourselves.

Mr. Diaz, in his op-ed piece (which can be found in its entirety here) condemns the actions of Prop. 8 protestors who have called for boycotts of businesses and institutions that funded the "Yes On 8" campaign:

"Blacklists" of donors who contributed to Yes on 8 are circulating on the Internet, and even small-time donors are being confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a fast-developing boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater group and a Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.

This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

Oooh...the poor widdle dentist wost two whole patients. I guess that's the price you pay for standing up for your beliefs, right, Doctor? And as for Mr. Eckern, there's so much hypocrisy going on there when you look into the story, I can't even begin to fathom it.

Besides, it's not like gay people invented the boycott. I seem to remember boycotts being called against movies, Proctor & Gamble, hell, even frickin' Disneyland because something done by the people in charge didn't sit well with religious organizations.

Look. I don't approve of the protestors who are actually out there hurting people, or defacing property, or endangering the safety of those who disagree with them. Nothing hurts our cause more than overzealous fanatics stooping to the level of the bigots on the other side of the issue.

But please. There are very few methods of protest more peaceful and more civil than boycotts. Hitting your opponent in the wallet, taking away business to show them you disapprove of their views. That's been an American institution for decades now. And the people who are whining now because they don't think it's fair that we're using that tactic against them? Perhaps they're in need of a little history lesson.

This is what I've been saying all along...

A reader at retrieverweekly.com articulates an argument that I've been advocating for a couple of years now:

"... if this country is based on the concept of separation between church and state, then the word "marriage" should not be involved in this argument at all. "Marriage" is a religious institution, therefore the government should not have a say in it. All couples, heterosexual and homosexual, should be granted domestic partnerships instead. If they choose to get married within their respective religions, that is a matter for their houses of worship to determine."

Read the full letter here.

The new argument: Gays must die for their rights

The website thinkprogress.org has thrown a light onto the newest argument being thrown our way by the bigots who feel justified at denying an entire segment of the population their rights: Gay Rights are not Civil Rights, and are in no way comparable.

Take, for instance, this statement from Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (full article here):

You try to compare this to interracial marriage. It is not the same thing. There were extra provisions put that would prohibit people that were man and woman to marry. This is redefining marriage. It’s a totally different issue.

Even more disturbing is another trend in Right-wing punditry: the argument that Gays cannot claim to be oppressed, and cannot claim to be fighting for their Civil Rights, because they have not suffered enough violence to earn those rights.

Exhibit A: Governor Mike Huckabee, appearing on the ABC series The View and being interviewed by Joy Behar (full article here):

HUCKABEE: It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights. We’re never going to convince each other.

BEHAR: Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. it was right there on the books.

HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge.

Exhibit B: Tara Wall of the Washington Times (full op-ed piece here):

Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex. Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison. Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale.

I have two words for Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Wall: Matthew. Shepard. Try telling his parents, his family, his friends, that gay people have not suffered enough violence to justify their calls for equal rights. Try saying the same thing to all the gay people in the nation who have been beaten up, bullied, and driven to suicide, all because the people they love and form attractions to happen to be of the same gender.

I have a question for Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Wall as well: How many of us have to die before you admit that maybe we deserve the rights we're crying out for? How many people's lives have to be senselessly ruined before your bigoted bloodlust is sated?

From out of the past, a reason for hope...

A very interesting article from latimes.com, via the good folks at Towleroad.com:

In 1992, the State of Colorado passed Amendment 2, which abolished anti-discrimination laws in some of Colorado's major cities. It was considered a major step backward for the Gay Equal Rights Cause, until legal appeals were brought against it.

Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted. These rights include access to housing, government services, public accommodations and public and private employment opportunities without regard to an individual's race, sex, religion, age, ancestry, political belief or other characteristic that defines each of us as a unique human being. Amendment 2, the opponents argued, therefore denied gays and lesbians the equal protection of the laws, which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, deemed Amendment 2 unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote:

"[It] is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Full article can be found here.

This raises hope for those of us who oppose Proposition 8, because the same basic argument can be made in this case that the Supreme Court made in 1992. The very fact that Proposition 8 rescinded rights already in place, rather than denying rights that did not already exist, suggests that definite malice, or as Kennedy put it, "a bare...desire to harm", was at play.

Let us hope that the current Supreme Court, if the case must be taken that far, recognizes the wisdom of the 1992 Supreme Court and agrees to reinstate to gay couples in California the rights to which they are entitled.

Nepal grants its LGBT citizens the dignity America can't

From gaypolitics.com:

The Nepali Supreme Court released a decision today granting protections and rights for sexual and gender minorities. The decision comes after four gay rights groups, including the Blue Diamond Society, filed a petition through the court.

The decision reads, in part:

All LGBTI must be defined as "natural persons" and their physical growth as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, expression are all part of natural growing process. Thus equal rights, identity and expression must be ensured regardless of their sex at birth.

Full article can be found here. I found the link courtesy of the great folks over at Towleroad.com.

Okay, America. Nepal gets it. Let's get on the ball!

I...really don't know what to say about this one...

From an interview with the Whackjob Formerly Known As the Artist Formerly Known As Prince in The New Yorker:

When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, "God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ "

Complete article can be found here.

Ummm...hello? Really, Prince? I mean, really?! Aren't you the guy who changed his name to a symbol that represented hermaphroditism? Who is probably second only to Boy George in the arena of turning sexual-orientation ambiguity into career gold?

When you're reading the phrase "Prince tapped his Bible", you know you've gone down the rabbit hole.

Introducing the Hypocrite of the Year...

I just had to laugh when I read this over at californiansagainsthate.com:

William Bolthouse of Bakersfield, CA, contributed $100,000 in support of Proposition 8.

However:

Bolthouse Farms recently took significant steps to demonstrate that it is committed to diversity, including those in the LGBT community. They recently extended medical benefits to same sex partners of employees, and have given generously to several national and California LGBT organizations.

Apparently, they can't make up their minds. Or maybe they're proponents of the whole "Separate But Equal" mindset. Either way, it's so sad, you just have to laugh.

The Dishonor Roll

The website californiansagainsthate.com has published a list of donors who contributed large sums of money in support of Proposition 8. The list is fairly extensive, and can be found, along with contact details and notes on the persons and organizations, here.

Visit this site and take note of the people and companies listed. They are from all over the country, and many have roots in religious organizations or larger corporate interests. Phone numbers, addresses, and e-mail addresses for these contributors are included.

Write these places. Phone them. They need to be inundated with complaints from people who aren't going to stand for their hate-mongering. Make sure you don't give them your money or your custom, if you can at all help it.

Special thanks goes to Drub Skin at Facebook for pointing me in the right direction.

To whet your appetite, here is a list of the top twelve, along with their location and the amount of money they contributed toward the demise of our freedoms.

Knights of Columbus,
New Haven, CT
$1,425,000

Howard Ahmanson, Jr.,
Irvine, CA
Fieldstead & Co.
$1,395,000

John Templeton,
Bryn Mawr, PA
John Templeton Foundation, Chairman/President
$1,100,000

National Organization For Marriage,
Princeton, NJ
$1,041,134.80

Terry Caster and Family,
San Diego, CA
$693,000

Robert Hurtt,
Orange, CA
$550,000

Focus On the Family,
Colorado Springs, CO
$539,643.66

American Family Association,
Tupelo, MS
$500,000

Claire Reiss,
La Jolla, CA
Reisung Enterprises
$500,000

Elsa Prince,
Holland, MI
$450,000

Concerned Women For America,
Washington DC
$409,000

Hartford Holdings, LLC.,
Provo, UT
$300,000

And the hate goes on...

This...is truly disturbing. On every level.

What follows is a series of responses to an article on popeater.com, about George Clooney and other celebrities who openly blasted the passing of Proposition 8. This is only a small selection of the hate and bile being spewed by the (largely illiterate) populace visiting the website. Any italics are mine.

Tomco727: bunch of lowlife drug addicts perverts stay i n hollywood

Klbtcb1224 : marriage is between a man and a woman period no debate if you are gay want to callit something else then its okay but somethings cant be changed and shouldnt be and to compare gay rights with civil rights is just plane wrong there is no comparison of slavery rape and general disrespect of african americans in this country to the discrmination of gays in this country

YNobodylikeme: Gays are using their sexual orientation to stir up trouble. All we wantto do is CELEBRATE of having an AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT... butnoooooooo... Gays aren't happy. I don't know why it was on the ballot inthe first place. You expect us to vote no to Prop 8. You're an IDIOT!!!!I am sick of you and everybody else attacking Christians for no reason...Gays and Government asked us to vote, so we VOTED, and most of us pickedYES on PROP 8. So there. And leave us alone and leave our children alone.We don't wanna accept your preverted lifestyle. So get over it.

(Question, just for my own clarification: was it gay groups or the government who put Proposition 8 into motion, or was it religious groups? I don't remember exactly how this all came about. Could someone enlighten me on this point? --DP)

APOCALYPZ187: I think the majority has cast their vote on this issue on more than one occasion so please give it a fuckin' rest already and quit all the whining and bitchin', go back to smoking your meat pole and eating your sushi for the gays and lezzys. Its a wrap, now everybody go about their business and stfu.

Manservant chris: clooney likes the smell of poo.

truthisonmyside: I certainly don't want to be your judge but I hate how gay relationships are taking over our television shows. I don't ever want my children to think it's normal and acceptable.

(Does anyone know where I could find statistics on what percentage of t.v. shows feature gay relationships, and whether those gay characters are major roles? --DP)

amwfshs: Homosexuality is a sin, just like lying or stealing or binge drinking, and it should not be promoted, nor should any other sin.

Dannys Dailys: Incidently, all you homosexuals are pro abortion, right? I mean you all show up at the same rallies. Well, when they find the homo gene in a fetus, you'll all be gone. I can't imagine any one of your parents would have wanted a homosexual baby. If they can kill them because of gender? They can certainly kill them because of you. Be VERY careful what you wish for. And, if it's not genetic, that means you're all sick and need a cure.

KAPTM0RGIN: Sorry homosexual people, although you may think you are normal, not all people think that way, and they all have their right to freedom of speech. You are still outnumbered, so you are not the norm, sorry. And for the guy that said you are born with it, so it is not a desease..... People are born with Leukimia, and mental retardation all the time. So, it sure could be a desease, sorry. You call people ugly, that dont find homos normal....I think a dick in a mans mouth is pretty ugly, so we are all entitled to our opinions.

Russellpoole4: Ya know it does not fit any bible, it does not fit even science. What you do behind closed doors is yours. But never ever think its the right thing. You can make babies, you sound not have children period. If they later in life want that so be it. But facts are facts, if we were all like you... no one would be home we would all just get old and die whats left. If a male ape stuck his thing into another male ape. The other would turn around and kick his ass!

The article--along with over 400 responses--can be found here.

I would like to urge anyone and everyone reading this to go to the site and slam the article with positive responses. And, um, please, just for reputation's sake...mind your spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Unlike most of these haters, I'd like to think that my readers are capable of writing--and thinking--above a first-grade level.

I always knew there was a reason why I loved this woman...

From AfterEllen.com:

Comedian and actress Wanda Sykes officially came out this weekend, announcing to the estimated crowd of 1,000 gathered in Las Vegas at one of the many rallies for gay rights taking place around the country on Saturday that she's gay, and that she legally married her wife in California on Oct. 25. ...

" We took a huge leap forward and then got dragged 12 feet back. I felt like I was being attacked, personally attacked — our community was attacked.

"Now, I gotta get in their face," she continued. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."

Full article can be found here.

I have the feeling that the Prop. 8 decision is going to be the catalyst for a lot of people--especially people in the public eye--to start becoming more vocal about their sexual orientations and beliefs. The supporters of the Proposition hoped to silence us, to take away our voices, and to weaken us. What they may have done, instead, is motivate us to make our voices even louder than before.

Either way, I'm very proud to be on the same side of the issue as a strong, vocal, intelligent woman like Wanda Sykes. You couldn't ask for a better voice to add to the cause.

Maybe it's time for the sun to go down on Elton John...

I found this interesting little tidbit on the "Hot Topics" column over at gay.com.

Openly gay music icon Elton John has publicly expressed his view that "separate but equal" is the way to go:

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership...You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Full article can be found here.

Nice to know that we have our very own Uncle Toms like Sir Elton to look up to.

Greetings and Salutations!

Hello, one and all! First of all, I'd like to welcome all who are reading this. I hope that this blog proves to be a valuable and positive experience for everyone involved. I'd like to start out by telling everyone a little bit about me, and about my reasons for starting this site.

About the Founder

My name is Dale Pawley. I am thirty-six years old, and I live and work in Las Cruces, New Mexico, a city of about 80-100,000 near the New Mexico-Texas-Mexico border. The nearest large city that many people may have heard about is El Paso, Texas, which is about 45 minutes away. I have lived here for over thirty years now, having moved here with my family when I was almost six, from Flagstaff, Arizona, where I was born.

I was raised in a conservative Christian family. The churches we attended during my formative years were either Assemblies of God or offshoots thereof, which means that I am conversant, when necessary, in the language used by the Falwells, Robertsons, and Palins of the world. Even now, although I have not retained much of the faith with which I was raised--I consider myself an Agnostic--I have kept many of the same conservative values that were instilled in me by my family. This is not always a blessing, since I often find myself torn between these conservative values and the more liberal ideas that I am slowly coming to embrace.

I do not consider myself a "Big L" Liberal, by the way; if anything, I fall into the Moderate category, although somewhat to the left of true center. I attribute some of the left-leaning tendencies I have to the ideas I was exposed to during my five years of college, but most of my attitudes have been influenced by the fact that I am a gay man.

You're WHAT?

Being raised in the type of atmosphere that I was, sexuality in general was not widely discussed. While my mother believed in answering honestly whatever questions my sister and I asked, the fact remained that we simply didn't know what questions were there to be asked. Most of what I did learn, I learned by simple osmosis, either from books, or from listening to the conversations of my classmates and peers. By the time I got to college, I knew less about sexuality than a great many Middle School kids (including my little brother, who's 12) know today.

It should come as no surprise, then, that I didn't figure out my own sexuality until relatively late. It wasn't a question of being in denial; it was more a question of being in the dark. I knew that homosexuality existed; I had known a few guys in High School who were unquestionably "different from everyone else", and in college I had some friends who were openly gay or bisexual. Unlike many members of my family, I didn't think there was anything wrong with them; it was all just part of their personality. By the same token, however, I was so out-of-touch with my own feelings that I didn't even consider the possibility that the same could apply to me.

I had always--honestly--assumed that my ambivalence toward "the fairer sex" was explained by the fact that I was too busy--with theatre, with classes, with friends--to complicate my life with something as silly as romance. I also suffered from very low self-esteem, so the thought never entered my mind that someone in their right mind could actually find me attractive. As I said, I was totally in the dark.

The light switch was flipped on when I was twenty-one. It happened on a crisp autumn night, when a (male) theatre cohort derailed a perfectly friendly conversation with a rather passionate kiss. It took me by surprise, and the shock I felt in that moment probably saved both him and me from a reaction more violent than, "Please don't do that again."

I spent the next two years of my life desperately trying to flip the light switch back to the "off" position. I don't think, looking back on it, that I was afraid so much of the fact that I was gay, but more by the consequences of that fact. I knew that, if I accepted this part of myself and pursued it, then eventually I was going to have to tell other people. And that was all I needed, was another reason for people to reject and ridicule me. So, until the age of twenty-three, I hid that part away, and hid myself from it, and simply willed it to go away.

It wasn't until I'd moved back home after dropping out of college that things changed. While in rehearsals for a show in which I'd been cast at the local university, I met a young man who seemed so much, I don't know, brighter than everyone else around him. I was smitten right away, and during the course of that show and another immediately following it, he and I became friends. I learned that he was bisexual, and found a host of other people in the local theatre community who were also of "alternative sexual orientation". Meeting these other people really helped me become more comfortable with my own feelings, and gradually I came to an acceptance of myself as a gay man.

On the afternoon of June 24, 1996--I was twenty-three years old--I phoned one of my college friends and told her that I was gay. I felt safe telling her, since she had always displayed an open mind about such matters when we were in school together. Somehow, however, her open mind failed me, and she reacted angrily and violently. I immediately went to the house of this guy that I'd befriended, and came out to him and his roommate (both of whom, I might add are now friends of mine on Facebook, connected even though we are all at great distances from each other). They both showed a great deal of acceptance and understanding, and both have my undying gratitude for being there when I really needed them.

Somehow, I'd gotten it into my head that once I was Out, I was Out. Hardly. I've come to learn that the act of coming out is a continuous process. Every new person I meet, every old friend I run into or reconnect with, is someone about whom I have to ask myself: "Do I trust this person with this information? Is there any value in them knowing about this part of me? How important is it, really, that they know?" I have only recently become bolder in my revelation of this side of myself; some family members are just now getting confirmation of the fact (although I suspect that most of them have already figured it out); and I am still not out at work, because I simply am not sure that this information would not jeopardize my job. Like I said, it's a process. One that provides its fair share of heartbreaks and pleasant surprises.

Okay, that's all well and good. But why this blog?

As I've gained confidence in myself over the course of the past year, I've also found myself becoming more outspoken about my political beliefs. Aside from my brother who lives in L.A., and with whom I have only recently reconnected, I am the only person in my family who, to my knowledge, supported Barack Obama in this past election. Without the self-confidence I've acquired and my determination to make my voice heard, I don't know that I could have held my ground against the combined vocal opinions of my family and co-workers, who all had a plethora of reasons for throwing their support to the McCain/Palin ticket. I will admit to having had my doubts about Obama at first, but by the time he secured the nomination, he seemed to be, to my mind, the only choice that made any sense. I was further validated in my opinion when Sarah Palin, in an interview on a Christian television show, declared that she was in favor of a federal amendment to the Constitution which would ban gay marriage, in spite of John McCain's statement that such decisions should be left to the states. This made me realize that, for me and many of my friends and compatriots around the country, allowing Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House would be very dangerous.

On November 4, when Obama decisively beat McCain and won the election, I felt that we had truly turned a corner; when Obama gave his acceptance speech, I was in awe. I had completely forgotten what it was like to be inspired by a speech given by a leader of the country. Or at least, inspired to do something other than throw a brick through the television screen. I felt hopeful. Rejuvenated. For that evening, I felt that anything was possible, and the words "Yes, We Can" seemed to take on new meaning.

On November 5, however, I woke up to the news that the citizens of the state of California had voted in favor of Proposition 8, which rescinded the rights of homosexuals to enter into legal marriage with one another. An entire state--one which has stood out for so many years as a beacon of liberality and progressive thinking--had sent a message to the nation: Homosexuals do not merit the rights of full citizens.

My first reaction was hurt. It hurt me to think that California didn't see me or other people like me as a valid person. What had we done wrong? I failed to see what harm could possibly come of the two men down the street vowing to love one another for the rest of their lives, and having that vow recognized as valid.

Once the hurt wore off, however, it was quickly replaced by anger. More than anger, really. Outrage. How DARE they tell us we're lesser people than everyone else? How DARE they tell us that our love is less valid, less honorable, less real than everyone else's? It infuriated me that the voices of bigotry and religious fanaticism had prevailed. I immediately deleted some friends from my Facebook account who expressed satisfaction or happiness at the passing of Proposition 8. (I still have some relatives who are Facebook friends, who supported the proposition, and I have some difficulty with how to handle that; but that's another matter.)

I realized, however, that merely being angry wasn't the way to make things better. Screaming at a problem rarely makes it go away; action was what was required.

But what could I do? There's not that many opportunities for political action regarding Gay Rights in this neck of the woods; the gay population in this city tends to be apolitical, or if they are, then they're not incredibly vocal in their politics. It took me a few days of thinking, calming myself down, clearing my head, and considering my options before I finally came up with the idea, which you are seeing now.

So, what do you intend to do with this?

Good question.

My idea, in starting this blog, has several parts:

1. To provide a voice, not only for myself, but for other people like me;
2. To serve as a news outlet, specifically for items regarding the steps (forward and backward) taken by the Gay Rights movement;
3. To foster a community, where those of us frustrated by our second-class status--and our straight brothers and sisters who stand with us--can gather to share our ideas and concerns;
4. To promote accountability, holding those who make their voices public responsible for their statements, whether disparaging or complimentary.

This is where you, the readers, come in.

I would like to be able to post news stories dealing with Gay Rights issues. This includes, as I said, both triumphs and failures, places where we've leaped ahead and places where we could improve. I would also like to post quotes from public personas--be they politicians, actors, performers, or normal people whose words have been published or broadcast--both supporting our cause and insulting our character.

Finding these items on a national level will be fairly simple; our celebrities and politicians are always shooting their mouths off about something, and it would take a poor miner indeed not to find gold among those dredges. But I don't want this blog to focus simply on the big, national picture. I want to find those nuggets hidden away in local newspapers or broadcasts, something said or printed by the workaday reporter at the Podunk Herald, or that slipped out of the mouth of the Hicksville evening news anchor. I'd also like to see items from other countries, because it never hurts to see what our brothers and sisters overseas must endure.

I welcome any and all contributions. If you have written an editorial or essay on the subject that you'd like to see published...send it in! If some news item has caught your eye, send me the link. Anything that's used will be credited as your creation, or your find. Personal stories from the battlefront are always welcome.

In short, I don't want this to simply be MY blogsite. I will do the posting and moderating, but I want this to be something to which we all can contribute.

"Think globally, act locally" isn't cutting it anymore. It's time for us all to band together. This will not be the only place for this to happen; it's certainly not the first. But it can be our place.

I look forward to hearing from you, to learning from you, and to standing side-by-side with you as we take this fight to the streets.

Peace to you all.