Category: lgbt


As Facebook dwindles down from recent political explosions on the news feed, I’m still catching the odd debate here and there about the results of Maine’s Question 1.

It’s amazing how many people hide behind the premise of their “opinion” while spewing pure hatred. Just because you preface this filth with “in my opinion,” doesn’t make it any less that what it is: hatred. This world is full of it.

“Well I believe gay marriage is just wrong. Its disgusting.”

Maybe I find your face disgusting. Even Marie Antoinette had to learn sooner or later that the world wasn’t always going to cater to her expectations.

“I just don’t understand it”.

I didn’t realize it was necessary to give commentary on everything you dont understand.  I’ll never understand the attraction to fake-platinum blondes. Does this mean I have to clog up your news feed to ensure you know my opinion about this?  Leave the comments about things you “dont understand” to conversations about physics. That, nobody understands.

“I’m sorry, that’s just my opinion”.

Apologizing along with it doesn’t really make you that much less of an asshole.

“Next we’re going to be allowing legal incest and pedophilia”.

Why not? It’s in the Bible. Kidding. Totally fricken kidding.  I have no hope for these people, anyway. With this type of logic, nothing is untouchable.

“It’s a sin! It says so in the Bible”.

This one is probably my favorite. Your cookie-cutter following of the Bible has brought you to the realization that it must be wrong. After all, absolutely everything else that is (assumed to be) forbidden in the Bible is followed to an exact science; all 700 different interpretations of it.  Theologians disagree about scripture every day, but John Doe can’t be argued with.

“I’m being forced to put up with something I don’t agree with!”

You sound like a spoiled child. Gay marriage isn’t forcing you to marry someone of the same sex! Did the feminist movement mandate bra burning?

“I am allowed to have my opinion”

There are always those people who, when all common-sense fails, they resort to the “I know my rights” mentality. You’re correct, you have the right to condone hatred. But after awhile, doesn’t it get old?


Thank you Maine!

…and Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota!

It was a little scary there for a bit this afternoon, leaving me questioning my faith in America’s Vacationland; the place I have called my first home for 26 years next week.

But the final tally is in, placing Maine as the 7th state to legalize gay marriage, and the first state to do so by means of popular vote!  Rachel Maddow made it official by declaring her love for me, I mean, my state, as soon as votes were in.


Our opponent, Protect Marriage Maine, spent many hours concerning themselves with the lives of others. (You know what they say about “those who preach the loudest…”) Carroll Conley and Bob Emrich, two of the opposing campaign’s leaders, were interviewed by the press Tuesday night:

“When we started this campaign, we said marriage was in trouble in our country.” Conley said.  “We made the case for traditional marriage and we’re terribly disappointed that we were not able to convince enough voters to hold on to the value of traditional marriage for society and we genuinely fear for the consequences we’ve raised during the campaign.”

Marriage is in trouble?  Honey, if you think a same-sex couple getting married is the downfall of traditional marriage, then your head must have been in the sand for the past couple decades.  Adultery, 2 week engagements, and on-the-spot marriages in Vegas to people who just met 15 minutes prior are all legal in the “traditional marriage” world.  Mistresses,  million-dollar celebrity weddings immediately followed by divorce, perhaps some of these things have contributed to putting marriage in trouble?

“…hold on to the value of traditional marriage for society…”

What is “traditional marriage”, anyway?  According to who you ask, the Bible allows for Polygamy, mistresses, forced marriages of children, trading wives for goats, among other horrendous things.  Or, maybe Conley means altered-traditional marriage, like in the case of Newt Gingrich. He can get married and divorced how many times? And it’s all legal. If that doesn’t bother you, but two committed people having ONE marriage does, then reexamine your priorities.

“…we genuinely fear for the consequences we’ve raised during the campaign.”

Um. What? Consequences?  If Barney Frank’s legal marriage affects you THAT much, I can recommend a decent therapist.   You know what will happen when gay people get married?  …gay people will be married.  Men like Newt Gingrich will still have affairs, get divorced, and remarried – all while preaching for traditional marriage.

Times are changing, Conley. Get on the bandwagon with us, or get out of our way.

Here is a letter from a gay son to his conservative father that has been circulating around Facebook this week. It makes a lot of great points that conservatives should think about, especially if they have gay friends or family.

The lines coming out of Chik Fil A this past week are shocking. Ok, not SHOCKING… this IS the South. But it is becoming quite apparent what a slap in the face this whole issue has become.

We have one side who is sick of the hatred, and tired of having our lives become the center of ongoing and hateful debates. We have the other side claiming “free speech”, First Amendment issues, blah blah.

Yes, people are entitled to their beliefs. But sometimes these beliefs make one seem quite ignorant, backwards, and overly old-fashioned.  For example, I have the right to believe that people who eat meat should be ripped of equal rights, (for the record I’m a meat eater). I have every right to believe that unicorns exist – and even that they are the Lord’s Savior.  I have had clients who truly believed they we’re Jesus Christ. (Who in this field hasn’t had that experience?)  We all are entitled to these protected beliefs, no matter how absurd they may seem to the general public.

It’s when people gather together with these extreme beliefs that there becomes a problem. Given the outlet and opportunity to act are what provide a dangerous outlet for discrimination.   I have met some vegans who, if given the chance, would probably persecute meat eaters.  These aforementioned vegans have the right to have an extreme dislike of meat eaters, right? What if these same extremists moved to collective political power? What if, in 20 years, it became illegal to eat meat here in the US?  What’s this? The beliefs of some shouldn’t affect the actions and laws that dictate the your life? Welcome to this realization!  

OK, that’s a bit of a stretch. (And sorry to any vegan readers for my hypothetical example). But this is how the Chik Fil A fiasco looks to me: people are rallying in support of one’s First Amendment right to believe that a group of people should not have equal rights.  Switch the specific group of people, and we can see even more how ridiculous this has become:  “Redheads should not be able to marry each other”. After all, that red hair color – it’s just so unnatural. How about divorcees? Should they be able to get married after breaking one of the major rules within most religious doctrines? …How about Canadians? Who needs more Canadians, anyway? (Relax, I can say this: I’m from Maine. We’re all half-Canadian up they’ah).   Somehow, when we insert any other group of people besides gays into the mix, this issue become quite humorous. It is then that we can objectively see what we’re doing to ourselves.

Yes, people have every right to their opinion. They have every right to donate to a cause, whether that be: People United Against the Use of Thumb-Tacks, or even Protection for the Family Against the Unauthorized use of Goat Cheese.  Donate all you want. Believe whatever you want.

When my grandmother was a child, people had every much of a right then (just as they do now) to BELIEVE that women should not vote – and many rallied and donated against their efforts.  There are still people today who believe such horrible and discriminatory things, as we have seen this week.  What if the lines outside of Chik Fil A were in support of someone’s right to believe that women should not be allowed to vote?  What if they were in support of one’s right to donate money in support the removal of all child abuse laws from the books? What if those people with impromptu chicken cravings were really in support of anti-meat legislation? (Hey, irony happens every day. Especially in politics). Suddenly, the issue of free speech doesn’t seem as important. Or, would you still be in line?

Just, please, think about WHAT BELIEFS you’re supporting. This isn’t a debate about free speech. It’s about making people aware of impact this speech is having on those most vulnerable.

          Romney gave a commencement speech at the conservative Liberty University this past weekend, where he made sure to speak about religion for half the allotted time available to him. In a moment that was not uncharacteristic of his inability to take a solid position, he advocated for protection for religious beliefs, and against gay marriage, in the same breath. If we truly have religious protection, and Separation of Church and State, then why is a presidential candidate speaking at a nationally known religiously conservative institution during his campaign?

  “For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%.  But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor.” 

        Firstly, why is he telling college students about the benefits of a high school degree? At this point it’s safe to assume they understand that point. Also, why reinforce the benefits of waiting to have children if you publicly denounce birth control and Planned Parenthood funding. Are you suggesting, dare I say, abstinence? Because we KNOW how well THAT works. I should also point out the ambiguity of the word “poor”, especially when used by someone of Romney’s out-of-touch stature.

     “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

        OK, and many people (Liberty University included) feel that Mormonism isn’t really Christianity. What does any of this crap have to do with college graduation?  Shouldn’t we be focusing on jobs and the economy? You know, the “important stuff”, as coined by Mitt, himself.

But from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man. Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution. And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action. “

      Why is he speaking about religious freedom, if he doesn’t believe it in for people outside of his faith? Religious freedom is essential for those who practice Christianity, but for the rest of us, guess we’re on our own. Don’t believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality? Too bad, you have to follow our Christian-based laws. Don’t believe that the Bible’s words should dictate our laws?  Too, bad. See above rule. Freedom of religion only applies to Christians, according to Romney. “Religious liberty” should protect his right to enforce his beliefs on me.  No, you are forbidden by (secular?) law to marry who you love! We demand religious freedom!  The hypocrisy is blinding.

Religious freedom opens a door for Americans that is closed to too many others around the world”

America is better than every other country. This just reminds me of that Planet Fitness commercial where the big muscular guy can only say dumb things like “I lift things up and I put them down“.  Hopefully Mitt will remember how much he enjoys talking about social issues the next time he sees a reporter, instead of falling back on his usual flip-flop fueled position of “let’s focus on the important issues!”

This article was meant to be an April Fool’s joke. It was published on April 2nd. (Is there a certain time allotted for the distribution of April Fool’s jokes? )

Either way, this is awesome. Apparently, Starbucks’ sales skyrocketed after National Organization of Marriage demanded the boycott of their product in response to the company’s outward support of equal marriage.  The satirical article claims that Apple and Microsoft, jealous of Starbucks’ increase in sales, are requesting a boycott of their companies in order to attain the same financial boom.

It is too hilarious that it is financially better for businesses to be boycotted by NOM.

The best quote in the entire piece:

“In 2010 Google began compensating their coupled LGBT employees for the added tax burden that the Defense of Marriage Act creates.”

Oh, the list of  things that would only happen if true equality existed.

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”                 -Rick Santorum

So therefore, it’s not possible to love someone of the same sex in a romantic way.  I can’t even dignify his words with a rebuttal.  I can only ask why anyone would support this man unless they admit to being homophobic.  Don’t pretend not to be homophobic just to vote for him because of his “stance on foreign policy” or some other crap.  I can’t believe so many people support this man.

As long as we continue to tolerate discrimination, it will continue .

This week’s article in Gambit (non-NOLA friends: a local New Orleans publication) ran a spotlight on the recent statewide anti-bullying bill- HB 407- which has been a heated topic of conversation within schools over the past several months.  Despite unrelenting support from the Orleans Parish School Board, the Louisiana School Boards Association, the Louisiana Association of Educators, Louisiana School Counselors Association, NAMI, and many others; Louisiana State Rep. Austin Badon’s anti-bullying bill was defeated in 2011 after immense opposition from religious conservatives.

Among one of the opponents of the bill, Rev. Gene Millis, president of the Louisiana Family Forum (a “family values” group here in the state), nicknamed the bill the “Homosexual Bullying Bill”.  He denounced the bill for its “gay agenda”, saying the bill forces teachings and awareness of “alternative lifestyles”. Not surprisingly, this lobbyist group is quite influential in the capital of a religious state like Louisiana. John Yeats, another opponent of the bill, and member of the Louisiana Southern Baptist Convention, is quoted as saying “Homosexual activists are hijacking the bullying statutes to promote homosexuality”.

This lobbying certainly won over Rep. Alan Seabaugh, who took the same stance to the bill, claiming he felt that the bill “was intended to promote an agenda and force teaching alternative lifestyles to our children.” In an email to a constituent in 2011 who took an opposite position than him regarding the bill, he wrote, “I have studied the teachings of Jesus Christ and I agree with his teachings regarding homosexuality. It is a sin plain and simple and it does not need to be taught in our schools. I was taught long ago to avoid getting into a debate with an idiot”.

This bill adds an additional protection for students based on gender identity and sexual orientation, and will be following the path of at least a dozen states who have taken the same stance on protection from bullying.  With so many suicides in recent media coverage bringing to light issues of bullying, not taking a stand means you’ve stood for the bullies, and for the harsh treatment these children are unfairly receiving in a place where they should undoubtedly feel safe.

With 84% of LGBT students reporting having been verbally harassed, 40% reporting physical harassment, and 18% being physically attacked (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, 2009 survey), the protection for LGBT students has an obvious need in an anti-bullying bill. This bill does not only protect gay and lesbian children, it protects every child that bullies target: overweight children, underweight children, children with glasses or speech impediments, “uncool” kids, as well as children of religious fundamentalists -the aforementioned opponents to this bill.  Protecting our children should be of the utmost importance.  Justifying your opposition to this bill by claiming nonsense about a “gay agenda” is not only pre-19th century stupidity, it affirms quite the opposite: a discrimination agenda.

A recent documentary, Bully, which follows several students during their real-life experiences with bullies, has made the news recently for its ‘R’ rating – which is counterintuitive to the attempted message of the film. If students are unable to see the film, then how will its message be relayed in time to be effective? More importantly, if the issue of bullying is seen as too graphic for young children, doesn’t that send a message about the crucial nature of this social problem?

In Arlington, Texas last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech on this topic, saying “we have an obligation to protect young people who are targeted just because they’re perceived as ‘different’… no one deserves to be bullied, harassed, or victimized because of who they are, how they worship, or who they love”.   Those who pride themselves on promoting the Christian, “Family Values” message, should think about what exactly they are refusing; and in turn, what message they are promoting as a result. Someone should remind them that Jesus did not discriminate.

**Sign the petition at to keep “idiots” like Seabaugh, along with his “agenda”, from affecting the safety and well-being of our children.**


Stuff Queer People Need To Know

Every queermo has heard the various arguments surrounding same-sex marriage so many times that we can recite them better than Gaga lyrics (which could, potentially, be used as an argument for same-sex marriage. We were born this way, right?).

Anyway, most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rooted in religious doctrine and preserving religious freedom. Opponents worry legalizing same-sex marriage will force their church to marry homosexuals and all hell will break loose, fire and brimstone and all that. Or that whole thing about Adam and Steve being just plain unnatural. Whatever.

Marriage is a very complicated touchstone of American society, intertwining legal rights and responsibilities with religion and morality. So, here is a very simplified explanation of the very complex issue of marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Religious and legal marriage
No one knows exactly where marriage came from. The custom pre-dates reliable recorded history, and almost…

View original post 918 more words

With LGBT issues on the rise in the political, as well as social media, the Democratic platform is under a great deal of pressure to focus more on gay rights for the upcoming election.

When asked about gay marriage in the past, President Obama has stated that he is “evolving” on the issue.   Shame on him for not taking a stand against discrimination. I am always amazed when someone is against marriage equality, but hearing it from another minority truly reinforces the ever-present unacceptance that many groups continue face even in this country.

If we truly had Separation of Church and State, then presidents would not be asked about their faith during debates, and everyone would be allowed to get married – regardless of what it says in someone’s Bible.

Until then, Newt Gingrich and Hugh Hefner will continue to change wives like they do their underwear; all in the preservation of the sanctity of marriage.