When do we get to call B.S., exactly?

I came across an article today that astounded me. It's titled, 

"What gay rights activists don't want you to read: Vital testimony from a man raised by two moms"

Intrigued, I decided to read it, because hey - if there's some big secret I'm trying to keep from people as a gay activist, I really need to know what it is! 

What was written had me alternately laughing and cursing at my computer screen. It is an absolutely perfect example of how desperate the conservative right is to gather damaging information on LGBT households - parents, in particular - and how far they will bend or fast they will spin the truth in an effort to create that info. 

Now, the title of this article (and I use that term extremely loosely) would lead one to believe the man quoted and referenced in this piece - Mr. Robert Lopez - would have actually been raised by two moms, yes? I mean, this isn't neuroscience here..."testimony from a man raised by two moms" should indeed indicate he was actually raised by two moms, right? 

Wrong.

You see, that isn't actually the case. Upon actually reading this piece, I quickly realized that the man was raised alone by his mother, who yes - happened to be a lesbian, and who yes - also happened to have a girlfriend. How could I dare come to this conclusion, you ask? I mean it states right there in the title he was raised by wild, heathens lesbians, doesn't it? 

The trick here is getting past the inflammatory rhetoric that is passed off as journalism and noticing the facts. Take, for instance, this lovely paragraph, told from the viewpoint of Mr. Lopez:

"After my mother's partner's children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under "gay parenting" as that term is understood today."

Okay, whoa whoa whoa...back it up a minute. Did he just say his mother's partner moved in when he was 19? As in 19 years old? As in GROWN and at an age where the whole 'formative years' thing is just a faint memory in the rearview? 

Why yes, I believe he did. 

And yet he claims to have suffered from his experience of being raised under "gay parenting", and to have been afflicted by numerous ill effects from that 'raising'.  

Is anyone else smelling this? Am I the only one? How can this not be a story on The Onion or some other satire site?

Has it really come to this...that the Right is truly this desperate in the face of all the scientific evidence that has proven time and again that LGBT households are really no different, and certainly not damaging?

Honestly, to trot out a story about a man who was supposedly 'raised' by his mother and her partner, only to state this 'raising' took place beginning at the age of 19, and then for only a few years until his mother's death, and try to somehow use it to prove the damage imparted by being raised in a gay household? That's a stretch even for the conservative media.

The article goes on to explain, in Mr. Lopez's words, how incredibly difficult his life was, having no male role models and no one to explain gender-norms to him at all. How he didn't know when or how to say the right thing at the right time in social situations, due to his lack of knowledge regarding "gender cues most of us take for granted"; and how he ended up in the "gay underworld" after college because of his 'raising'. 

Seriously? Did he live in a bubble all those years when he was living alone with his mom? No uncles, no male friends, no grandparents...no one who was male in his life at all? How very interesting. And how exactly does this speak to being raised by a committed, monogamous, same-sex couple who live under one roof as a family again? That's right - it doesn't. 

This seems more indicative of life with a single mother and the effects that might have on a boy growing up, but again - there's no need to concern ourselves with the facts, folks. These gays are out of hand, and here's just the guy to prove it!

One extremely interesting tidbit came from his explanation of his decision to marry a woman (stated that way in the article by him, thus indicating he might just be a big ol' gay, himself). He remarks that his goal was to "concern myself first and foremost with my children's needs, not my sexual desires." 

Well, that's admirable. I mean, as long as you're not a closet case, who is ruining not only your own life but that of your wife who thinks she married a straight man, and those of your children who are going to be devastated that you lied to them all these years when you do finally come out at the age of 50-something. Because then it's not admirable, it's loathsome and selfish.

So at what point do we get to refute mess like this and bring it to the attention of those who are promoting what it supposedly "proves"? And would it really make a difference if we did? Is the right-wing so far gone that it no longer cares about the truth behind its reporting? 

The existence of some things, like Fox News, would suggest the answer is 'yes'. But I have to wonder - and I have to hope - that somewhere, someone will fact-check their way into the conservative regime, and will show the people there that not only are they operating on fiction, but they are willfully ignoring the fact. That just adds up to sadism, if you ask me. 

Knowing something is wrong and factually incorrect, but promoting it anyway because it supports what you've been beating your head against the wall to prove, no matter how many people it hurts or how many young people it drives to suicide...that, to me, is the greater danger. 

This movement spends so much time and energy and money and resources to beat down a group of people who have never done a thing to it besides have the audacity to believe something it does not. And the people behind this movement willingly give these things to a cause that is unfounded and disproven and harmful, when that time, energy, money, and resources could be spent saving the lives of the homeless or hungry.

But hey - at least they're not gay, right? And to them, that seems to be all that matters.

My Letter to Brian Brown (of NOM)

As I'm sure the vast majority of you are aware by now, there was a ground-breaking move made by Dan Savage. No, this time he behaved himself - quite well, in fact. He invited Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (a misnomer, but I digress...) to come to his home, eat dinner with his family, and have an open, moderated debate on marriage equality. I know, right?

It's an hour long, but so very, very worth the time. Take a look here.

Now, I have come against Dan Savage's methods on this blog before, and I stand by my words. But I have to say that during this debate he is once again the Dan Savage I am so proud of...the one that has done so much good for our community by engaging in thoughtful, meaningful, intelligent, informed, and well-researched and referenced conversation. 

And for his part, I also have to commend Mr. Brown on his composure during the debate. It does run contrary to what I have seen of him via other media links, but we all have our bad days, I suppose. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until I saw this.

In case you don't feel like following a link, essentially Mr. Brown got on NOM's website (and on his high horse) to declare his "victory" in the "valley of the beast". Really? Gone was the civility...replaced by fabricated sadness that he just couldn't lead Savage to the truth, and inflammatory talking points that attempted to make his followers believe what he believed - that Savage was just flat out wrong. Never mind that he actually gave any proof that Dan was wrong. He shouldn't have to, you know? Because he just was. 

I was so blown away by his claim to apparent victory, and by the responses given in the comments, that I could not help myself. I had to add one. I know, I know...deaf ears and all of that. But I could not click that 'back' button without speaking my mind. I know that comes as a horrible shock to all of you.

Below is the text of my comment...all lengthy and verbose, as is my personal style. But I really hope that maybe just one person on that site will read it, and hear what it is I am trying to say. I did my best to not be ugly, and for the most part I think I succeeded. 

Let me know what you think in the comments - should I have been harsher? Nicer? Just left it alone? (Pshh. C'mon guys...you know I can't leave things alone!)

________________________________________

Well, I must say...there is certainly one aspect of this post that I appreciate. And that is the fact that you say we are not the poor little gay people deserving of pity due to being a minority. Because we are not. Deserving of pity, that is. We're deserving of rights. And before the vast majority of you jump the gun and start mentally writing out your insulted retort to this, please take the time to read what I have to say. The only way to have a fair debate is to actually give time and consideration to what the other side has to say. I read this article in its entirety, twice, and watched the debate as well. 

All this double-talk and circular arguments that lead to the basic assumption we are simply deviants who need to be pitied amounts to nothing more than the southern equivalent of "bless their hearts". You know, how we can get away with saying something horrible about someone down here, as long as we follow it with "bless her heart"? - i.e., "She looks positively obese in that dress, bless her sweet heart!"

Unfortunately, this is the elitist attitude that is all too often displayed by you, Mr. Brown, and many of your cohorts/followers. 'Well, I tried to tell them, but they just won't listen! They seem completely immune to the truth, and bent on remaining deviant...bless their hearts!'

What is somehow just not getting through to you is that while you absolutely have the right to believe as you wish, and you absolutely have the right to speak about and promote those beliefs, you absolutely do not have the right to seek change or ban change to civil legislation on religious grounds. Marriage is a civil institution. Religious marriage is a religious institution. There is most certainly crossover - even in the gay community - but it is not mandated. Pagans are entitled to civil marriage. Atheists are entitled to civil marriage. Divorcees are entitled to civil marriage. Muslims, Taoists, Hindus...everyone is entitled to civil marriage under the law...unless you happen to have the same plumbing. 

It is a fundamental flaw that we are seeking to repair.

I do not need nor desire your approval of my relationship or my family, just as you do not need or desire my approval of yours. That is what is so wonderful about this country - it's not necessary that one or the other of us be 'right' on the subject. 

But what you and so many others seem to dance around every time is that this country is not a theocracy - not by a long shot. In fact, it was founded on principles that run directly contrary to theocracy. Therefore, civil legislation must be decided on civil merits, not religious ideology. 

So many on the right are whipped up about the possibility of the nation falling under Sharia Law... Have you even stopped to think that Dominionism or a Christian theocracy is every bit as frightening to some people? Yes, I know you believe your way is the only way, and that's just fine. But there are millions of others who believe the same thing - about their version of the Christian religion or their non-Christian religion. 

What if a large, well-funded majority of them stood up and suddenly started making claims that everyone should be subject to the tenets of their faith, even in a country that is founded on the inherent right to religious freedom? Take Sharia Law just as an example...there are only the tiniest of echos of any kind of possibility that it could ever become a widespread situation, and how crazy has the world gone over just that? Do you think women would just sit by and let it happen? Or millions of others? Without protest? No. Because what is right for some is not right for all, and that goes for all of us. Period.

So please do not continue equating your religious beliefs and therefore your basis for the definition of marriage with actual civil rights. While there are certainly places the Venn diagram of life shows overlap, it does not - in any fashion - show dominion. 

Learn to see outside of yourself. Not go into "the valley of the beast" and consider yourself a hero...truly see outside of yourself. 

Honestly take a good look inside, and find the courage to say, "No, I do not agree with your life and who you are or claim to be, and I do not support your marriage. But my opinion is not law, and you have the same rights to the over 1130 federal benefits and protections that legal civil marriage has to offer." It's not so much to ask, really. It's what we do every day with others who do not hold our same faith or morals or ethics in whatever regard. This is no different, except where you make it so.

Call us what you wish...call us pitiable, or wrong, or lost. 

That is absolutely your right. 

But do not stand in the way of our civil rights based on your personal interpretation of one of hundreds of religions (or the absence thereof) that are allowed and practiced in this great nation. 

Because that, Mr. Brown, is not.

Dear Pat Robertson...

Just so you are aware - I do not now, nor shall I ever have any plans to 'shut my mouth' with regard to LGBT equality, as you have so eloquently requested. And while I cannot speak for each individual involved in the activist community at large, my educated guess would be that they, too, will refuse your rather obnoxious demand. 
_____________________________

For those of you who are not familiar with his request, here is a link to the story. Essentially, our good buddy Pat got so upset about advocates at several universities petitioning to oust Chic-fil-A from their campus, that he called upon the LGBT demonstrators/population to either "bring forth a baby from that part of the anatomy they concentrate on", or "shut their mouths". 

I'll admit, I'm a tad confused. I was unaware that babies were born to any individual out of their heart. I mean - that is the part of the anatomy we focus the most on, after all...oh, wait. I forgot - Mr. Robertson and his ilk only think of the actual s-e-x act when they think of us and our relationships. My mistake. 

Okay then, that makes sense...except...wait a minute. I am a lesbian, and have actually brought forth two babies (albeit out the window instead of the door, since I had to have c-sections). So...does that mean I'm supposed to be concentrating on my stomach? And what about the cis women* who are lesbians or bisexuals, and have had vaginal deliveries? Are they exempt? Or infertile couples? Older couples? Should hetero- and homosexual cis men* just be tossed out altogether since they physically cannot conceive and 'bring forth' children at all? And don't even get me started on what to do with trans men* who have had vaginal deliveries - I'm pretty sure that would make Patty's head explode.

I'm so lost. I think essentially what he was trying to say was unless you can poop a baby, you should shut your mouth. Which I agree would be a really cool trick, but I'm also quite doubtful that good ol' Pat could pull that off, himself. Which means he should shut his mouth. Now there's a sentiment I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Of course, he also had to pull out the tired and entirely irrelevant Leviticus passage, claiming that due to abortion and gay rights, the world is going to "vomit out its inhabitants". 

Short disclaimer: Just so we're clear - I am unapologetically pro-life. (I know, how very un-liberal of me). My stand has very little to do with religion and very much to do with scientific data, and it's just something about me you're going to have to deal with. Like my horrid housecleaning skills, or the fact that I have to have the toilet paper coming off the roll in one certain direction (from the top) or it ruins my whole day. Just part of the package.

Moving on..

So Patty-boy invoked the seemingly damning passage from Leviticus again - which I'm not quite sure has anything to do with pooping babies, incidentally - and tells the viewers,

"it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. It’s what it says. That is the moral law that God set forth and now we’ve got people at a university petitioning because somebody said I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well no, Mr. Robertson, on many counts. 

One, while I agree that the text of that particular passage does indeed say those words, it also says just a few lines down that it is an "abomination" to eat shellfish and wear fabric made of mixed linen. So the next time you sit down to that shrimp cocktail in your poly/rayon blend suit, make sure you are aware of the consequences. We'll save you a seat on the bus.

Two, should you actually apply the knowledge you should have about your own religion, that 'moral law' you speak of no longer applies, as Jesus came to abolish the law in the New Testament. Which is why no one is going around slapping crawfish out of people's hands or stripping them of their horribly sinful mixed-linen clothing. 

And three, the people at the university are not petitioning because someone said they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. People can say that all day - that's their right. What they are petitioning was allowing a secular company on their campus that is taking secular, public monies and funneling them into various hate groups - one of which even supported the law to kill gays in Uganda - on the basis of personal religious beliefs. Bit of a difference, that. 

In reality, Dan Cathy did us a bit of a favor...we deserve to know where our fabulous gay dollars are going, and we retain the right to refuse to contribute to the very causes that seek to keep us as second-class citizens. And that's just what these activists were protesting and petitioning for - to keep that kind of company away from their school, and away from the people that either do not know or willfully ignore the impact their money is having when they buy those waffle fries. 

So frankly, my dear Patrickins, you lack the critical support data and the basic understanding of the topic necessary to give your little demand any power whatsoever.

Which is why I will restate my earlier position:

I will not now, nor at any time in the future 'shut my mouth', 'keep quiet', 'calm down', or any other euphemism for 'sitting down and taking it' you can come up with. 

I will continue to speak out. I will continue to educate. And I will continue to fight until we are granted the same rights, the same privileges, the same respect as our heterosexual peers. And I assure you, Mr. Robertson - neither you nor anyone else has what it takes to stop me.

But hey, if you happen to poop a baby anytime soon, let me know. I'll bring you a chicken sandwich.

________________________________________

If you're unfamiliar with the terms I used in this blog, here is a little lesson:

*cis men: individuals whose biological sex is "male" and who experiences their gender and/or identifies as "male"

*cis women: individuals whose biological sex is "female" and who experiences their gender and/or identifies as "female" 

*trans man: an individual who was assigned a "female" sex at birth, but experiences their gender and/or identifies as "male" 

Ride, Sally Ride

I had another blog in the works before hearing about the death of a true inspiration. Not only does Sally Ride deserve to have her own blog post, the issues surrounding her life - and ultimately her death - bring the struggle of LGBT couples everywhere into sharp relief. So my plans have changed, and I will be writing this before finishing the promised blogs on Gay Rights vs. Religion and the Gay Parenting and Junk Science posts.


Sally Ride was an inspiration to an entire generation of girls. I happened to be in that generation. If for some reason you live under a rock, Ride was the first American woman in space. Up until that point, the U.S. space program was of the opinion that women were not fit for space travel - a belief they hung on the notion that a woman's menstrual cycle would make her a bad candidate. I think they might have just been thinking of themselves, though, if you think about it...a bunch of men, in a claustrophobically small space, trapped with no way out, and a woman on her period. Noooo...nothing could go wrong there!


Thankfully, the misogynistic attitudes abated and Ride was selected to go up. Not only was she the first female astronaut, but she was also the youngest astronaut in space, a prominent physicist, and held a Bachelors in English and a Ph.D. in Physics. Oh, and she was gay.


Tam O'Shaughnessy became Ride's partner in 1985, and they were together until Sally's recent death. If you're bad at math like me, I'll help you out - that's 27 years. In our current age of 55-hour marriages and a 60% divorce rate, any couple who sticks it out through 27 years is to be applauded. And maybe they were, in their circles. But the benefits of such a long partnership are quite different in Tam and Sally's case than they would be for a legally married heterosexual couple, and that is what I really want to address here.


Normally, if a wife or husband in a hetero marriage passes away, their remaining spouse is awarded certain benefits. These can range from Social Security to pensions, to other death benefits, and they are among the 1138 rights that are denied - even to legally married same-sex couples - the LGBT population at large by the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. 


However, because this over-two-decades-long relationship was between two people of the same sex, Ride's widow (because that's what she is), gets nothing. Nada. Zip. This woman, with whom Sally made a life, owned a business with, kept a home with, has been treated upon her partner's death as if she were some acquaintance or "friend". And oh, how I hate that word when it comes to our relationships. 


Ride has long been lauded as an American Hero, as an inspiration to young girls everywhere that they can be just as smart and successful as any boy. I can remember being a young girl and hearing about her launch on the Challenger. I always loved space and all topics related to space (still do), but the thought that even a girl could go there was so amazing to me. It really helped me see that I could walk the same path as any guy could, which for a girl in the South is a huge accomplishment.


And yet, this woman - who was so very important and integral to the self-esteem and educational choices of young women, and who broke through the 'good ol' boys' club - has been permanently and irrevocably rendered "less-than" by the very government and people she served. It is a sick irony, and it should never have to happen.


Because Sally loved Tam, and not Tim (or Walt, or Harry), she was never able to stand in front of friends and family and celebrate a legal union between them, nor was she able to leave a financial legacy behind that is honestly owed to her partner. They worked together as a team, and should be honored as a couple. But they are not, and it makes me ill.


This was made even worse, in my opinion, by the tweet posted by Mitt Romney. It went a little something like this:

"Today, America lost one of its greatest pioneers. The first American woman in space, Sally Ride inspired millions of Americans with her determination to break the mold of her time. She was a profile in courage, and while she will be missed, her accomplishments will never be forgotten."

Break the mold, she did, and not just in the space program. And her accomplishments will never be forgotten, but neither will any portion of the benefits from those accomplishments be awarded to her spouse. 


How Romney can stomach writing these words while simultaneously vowing to do away with almost every inch of headway we have made politically for LGBT individuals and couples just floors me. His comment should have been, 'She was a great pioneer, a profile in courage...but sorry...she has to sit at the back of the bus. Not my rules - I'm just doing what any Christian man who knows his Scripture, hides his money, and sells out to the highest bidder would do. Oh, and since she was gay, it's good that she had courage because she's now going to burn in hell. The Bible says so.' It's beyond perverse.


My heart goes out to Tam in this time - not only for what must be an excruciating loss of her partner of so many, many years - but also because the government that her partner served has dismissed her with a flick of its hand, turning a blind eye to the obvious relationship that existed between the two for longer than the majority of hetero marriages. Hiding behind an outdated (and no longer legally defensible) law, they willingly turned their backs on the wife of an American Hero.


How very unheroic.

"Ain't No Homos Gonna Get Into Heaven"

Hello all! Sorry for the major break, but we were on vacation, and now it's summer so my precious babies are here all...day...long...with me, which makes it kind of tough to write. ;o) I have also officially started the last two years of my Bachelor's program, so things have been kinda crazy around here. I missed this though - having an outlet for my outrage, so to speak. And do we have a humdinger today...
_____________________________________________


I have been struggling with an incident that was reported on May 30th of this year. I did my usual thing of posting the video on facebook and garnering as many results from educating the public about this heinous act as possible. But then something strange happened... See, many (ok, most) of the things I get upset about from an activist point of view I can eventually let go of rather easily - I get mad, I take what action I can, and then I move on. 


If I continued to let every single incidence boil and fester within me, I would be a walking ball of dirty, hairy, monster seethe. And as I have an incredible wife and two beautiful children to take care of, that just wouldn't do. So I let them go after I've done what I could (the incidences, not the wife and kids).


But there's one that I just cannot shake. It still haunts me every day. Maybe it's because I'm a mother and the very thought of filling a child's head with this kind of ignorant vitriol makes me physically ill. 


There is a video that has been circulating for almost a month now, of two sweet little boys on stage at a church service, singing their little hearts out. The name of the hymn, you ask? Oh, this was no hymn. The title of this catchy little ditty is "Ain't No Homos Gonna Get Into Heaven". Yup, that's right - the adults at the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, IN, took it upon themselves to not only write these foul words for the children's innocent mouths to spew, but also gave them a raucous standing ovation for performing it.


(Click here to see for yourselves, but I warn you - it's deeply disturbing. Also, the link to the full story is here.)


I cannot seem to get that sweet baby's voice out of my head, and I cannot help but think this has to qualify as some sort of child abuse. Teaching children such blatant discrimination and hatred is sick. It's just sick.


Regardless, it has haunted me for almost a month now, and still my inner activist is awake and bubbling over. So I finally decided to send the pastor himself (who is now in hiding) a little message via the church's website. 


I did not cuss. I did not spit ugly things at him. There really is no place for that if you want to get someone's attention and get them to actually listen and consider your points as valid arguments, as I believe I have covered before in my Dan Savage post. 


I simply stated to this pastor in the best terms I could why his actions and those of his church are unacceptable, not to mention directly contrary to the God they claim to serve. 


(If you feel moved to leave a message as well, the direct link to the website is here.)


Basically I centered my message around two key points:


1) I don't seem to recall at any point in the Bible that Jesus got up on stage and sang, "Ain't no tax collectors gonna get into heaven!". In fact, I am certain He did not. What He did instead is to sit and commune with them...to break bread with them...to treat them as human beings - not the punch line in some song. I explained to this pastor that as disappointed as I am in him as a mother and a lesbian, I am more than positive Jesus would be even more so. These are not His ways. These are the divisive and self-serving ways of man. Ever heard of the Pharisees? Moving on...


2) What if a gay man came across the home page of this church, and actually believed the words written there?  

"...our doors are open to you regardless of your background or where you are on your spiritual journey"..."

"We are striving to be the kind of church described in the Bible...where there's...compassionate care for those in need."

"You'll find that this is a place where you really matter - because you matter to God.

What if he took these words to heart and put down that razor or that gun he was about to kill himself with, and thought maybe - just maybe - there are people who will accept me and see me as a human being deserving of respect - help me to understand that God still loves me even if I feel no one else does?

And what if this young gay man happened to attend a church service, and it just happened to be the one where the entire congregation gave a standing ovation to these poor children unwittingly placed front and center at their horror show of hatred?

Do you think that man would stay? Do you think he would wait around for someone to come by and say that they "hate the sin, not the sinner", and that he was welcome there? Even if there were people to say that (and by the congregation's reaction to the song, I do not believe there would be), that gay man would not be there to hear it. He would be long gone, out the door, most likely finally and irrevocably broken. And I very much doubt he would survive the day.


I wrote to the pastor that he never knows who is watching him. Never knows who is trying to find a place to fit in, and who is on the brink of completely giving up and giving over to death in order to try and find some semblance of peace. These kinds of actions and blatant disrespect of human lives are what cause the litany of sorrow for the LGBT community...murder, suicide, beatings, bullying, discrimination, false information...the whole gamut.


But listen, the plain truth is that we can fight all we want for legal recognition as full citizens under the law. And we can fight for marriage equality, and non-discrimination clauses, and everything under the sun to ensure our lives are equal to and as privileged as our straight peers. But that's only law. It's not love. 


You cannot legislate someone's heart. You cannot vote in and approve a measure that is going to change their idea of what is and what is not acceptable within our society. It has been many, many years since separatism was deemed illegal, and yet the African-American community still suffers discrimination at the hands of the whites. Now it's just dressed up in a prettier package, is all.


To truly make a difference, and to truly change what needs to be changed so that we can all finally be seen as true equals - not under the law, but under the love we should all have for our fellow men and women who share life's journey with us - there has to be education. Educating the public, getting the right and true and correct information out there, and showing the people who fear us and our 'agenda' that our lives are every bit as boring and normal as theirs is the only way we're going to get the results we need to each live our lives in peace.


I'm going to say that again - educating the public about homosexuality in all its forms is the only way we will ever change what needs to be changed. 


Voting is good. Yes, please vote (if you don't, you forfeit your right to bitch, by the way). Keep up with politics - I know it's incredibly boring to some of you, and I understand that. Five minutes of my nightly MSNBC check-in and my wife is drooling and rocking herself on the couch. But it's important, and it does affect your daily lives in ways you can never imagine. So watch. Read. Discuss. Engage. Fill your mind with knowledge and facts and rebuttal points so that when someone comes against you for your views (and someone will, I assure you) you will have a fully stocked arsenal from which to draw, and you might just change a mind if you do it the right way.


And that is the last thing I want to touch on for this post:  

We must engage the other side in conversation, not competition. 

There is no place for a pissing contest when it comes to civil rights. When that happens, situations simply escalate out of control and both parties walk off more angry and sure that they have all the answers than when they walked in. 

To unlock this puzzle, and to find a middle ground there has to be dialog. No screaming, no name-calling, no cursing, no slurs. Just people, discussing a topic, and listening to and acknowledging the other side's views. 

What we have to remember is that as strongly as we feel about our beliefs on a topic, the other side feels just as strongly about theirs. So if we want to change their beliefs, we have to first meet them where they are, and then respect them enough to lead them into the light of truth instead of trying to shove them over to our side and tying them down.

Engage people. Talk to people. Use the opportunity of an awkward moment when someone first learns you are LGBT as an educational experience. My go-to phrase has been, "Yes, I am. And I am proud of my family. I know there's a lot of misconceptions out there, so if you ever have any questions - any questions at all - I'm an open book, and I'd be glad to answer them for you."

It is amazing what this approach does. First, you are not backing down from the accusation or treating your orientation as something that needs to be apologized for. And secondly, you are offering them a free tour of gay culture and gay life, because you have opened the floor up for questions. I cannot count the number of people I have said this to, and in the subsequent hours, days, or weeks, they finally come to me and begin to appease their curiosity. And what happens when that time comes is that they begin to understand that we are not different from them at all - the only true difference is the plumbing of our partners!

When we can make an open and honest and respectful world, things like these precious children being made to sing such hateful things and enjoying it because everyone is acting like they're so very proud will be a thing of the past. 

Once people's hearts are open, there is no turning back. Or should I say "ain't"?

And now for something completely different...

My last several blogs were so fraught with seriousness (and rightfully so, considering the subject matter), that I really felt drawn today to write something a little more lighthearted. 

This one is going to be mostly for all the parents out there, but I imagine it might elicit a few chuckles from the rest of the population as well. Today I want to talk about the conversations we never, ever could have predicted we would have.

Every parent has these stories...those times you have to bite the inside of your cheek to keep from laughing...or the things coming out of your children's mouths that make you have to leave the room so you don't laugh instead of discipline...the moments when you think, "I have got to be the only person in the universe that has had to discuss this." 


Our children give us so much joy. But the flip side of that is they they bring us so much frustration. Often these happen at the exact same time. 


And I don't know how many of you out there have had the experience of having these kinds of conversations with a  small child, but it is a definite...um, experience. LOL


Here are some of my own favorite personal gems:

Child:  Mommy, c'mere! I went poopy! (enters the house from the back yard carrying pull-up)
Me:      Okay...(immediately on alert) Where exactly did you go?
Child:  Over here! In the yard! (grabs my hand & escorts me to the spot where there is, indeed, kid poop.)
Me:      Honey, I'm so proud of you for knowing you had to go, but we do not poop in the back yard.
Child:  (sincerely confused) But the dog does it!
Me:      I realize that, but people have a toilet, and you need to use that.


Me:      Stop feeding your fruit snacks to your blankie. It just makes a mess.
Child:  But he's hungry.
Me:      I don't think it's hungry, love. It's a blanket.
Child:  (with that 'you are an idiot look') Blankies are people too, mom.


Child:  Can I ride on top of the van?
Me:      No. You would fall off, and I would be sad.
Child:  But you could tie me down real good. And I would hold on tight to the rails.
Me:      I understand that. But it's illegal. Do you want mommy to go to jail?
Child:  (thinking) Could I ride on top of the van while you're in jail?"


Child:  Can I have ice cream for breakfast?
Me:      No.
Child:  Why?
Me:      Because there's too much sugar in ice cream.
Child:  Isn't there a lot of sugar in my cereal?
Me:      Yes.
Child:  And isn't ice cream made out of milk?
Me:      Yes.
Child:  So basically ice cream is milk and sugar, and cereal is milk and sugar.
Me:      (realizing I've just been outsmarted) Technically, yes.  
Child:  I just don't see the problem here.


Child:        Mom, you have a lot of junk in your trunk.
Me:           Yes, I do. Do you know where it came from?
Child:        Us!
Me:            That's right.
2nd Child: (dancing into the living room) Mom?
Me:            Yes?
2nd Child:  You have a lot of junk in your legs, too.


Me:       Go get your hair ribbon. (we're already late for cheerleading)
Child:   I don't know where it is.
Me:       It's in your cheerleading box, in your room.
Child:   I don't think so.
Me:       I gave it to you after the last game and told you to put it away in the box.
Child:   (with a grave look on her face) Oh. You shouldn't have done that.


Child:   (comes to me chewing)
Me:       What are you eating?
Child:    Puz.
Me:        Puz?
Child:    Yeah. Puz. (pulls out a little wad of carpet fuzz from the new carpet)
Me:        Oh, fuzz!
Child:    Yeah. Puz. (puts fuzz back in his mouth, chews and swallows before I can respond)
Me:        Please don't eat anymore fuzz.
Child:    (with giant smile) Okay!


(this next conversation happened only a week or so later at A Day Out With Thomas)
Me:       (introducing child to cotton candy) Here, have some buddy! It's good!
Child:    (wary, recalling how I said peas were good)
Me:       Really! Try some!
Child:    (reaches perpetually wet & sticky hand out to grab some)
Child:    Puz!?!
Me:       (not remembering earlier conversation) Take a bite!
Child:    (genuinely confused) Eat the puz?
Me:        (finally getting it) Yes. Eat the puz.
Child:    (grins and takes a big bite) Mmmm. That's good puz!


(this was at a Thanksgiving table full of relatives)
Child:   Mommy, you're fat.
Me:       Is that so?
Child:   Yep. You're fat.
(entire family shifts in their seats uncomfortably)
Me:      And how did I get that way, darling?
Child:   (with enormous grin) Because of me and bubba!
Me:      That's right. Now eat.


So what funny/embarrassing conversations have you had with your children?
Care to share? 

Final FRC Summary

We're done, folks!


I know it's been a rather lengthy ride, but I wanted to detail the falsehoods as best I could. If only one person read this and decided to actually research what is being told to them, then it was worth all the time and effort put into it.


To sum up, the FRC utilized uncited and unnamed 'studies' to support their own religious ideology regarding same-sex marriage.


They spoke about SSM as if we live in a theocracy instead of a democracy, and indeed they think that is how it should be.


They perpetrated the horrible school of thought that seeks to 'repair' and 'convert' homosexuals into heterosexuals (as if such a thing were actually possible), and used a uterine-demon-banishing wacko as one of their 'success stories'.


Not only did they try to convince us that this change was possible, but they suggested it is also necessary; and willfully ignored the opinions of the experts in the field, flying in the face of just about every mental health group out there.


They skewed numbers within their own supposed 'studies', and blatantly fabricated the resulting data, insulting us all by assuming the public would be too dumb or too dumbfounded to notice.


This group - which is rightfully labeled a hate group by the SPLC - could do more damage to LGBT children and teens and their families than just about any other, simply because of their wide reach and deep pockets.


It is our right and our duty to continue to call out groups like this, individuals like this, and not let their hateful and harmful rhetoric destroy what we have worked decades to achieve - equality, respectability, acceptance, tolerance, and the chance to finally just live our lives without having to constantly be looking over our shoulder.


I hope you enjoyed this little series, and if not I hope you at least learned something.


I know I did.

***What would you like to see me write about? Submit a topic in the comments or via twitter - @jenibeanstalk - and I might just do it!***

FRC Series 5: Wrapping Up The Leftovers

I'm hoping you've all had time to digest and get over the big lump of crazy in my last post. Today I just want to address some miscellaneous tidbits that were presented in the FRC documentary, before my final conclusion post. So bear with me, because this is likely to be greatly lacking in cohesiveness. 


Leftover 1:  
One of the claims that Kris Mineau (head of the Mass Family Institute) makes regarding how same-sex marriage is dangerous to children centers around an anecdote about a mother who came to him with a serious concern. Apparently this mother was doing yardwork with her son when the little boy down the street came up to her and asked if it would be alright for him to marry her son when he grew up. According to Mineau, this mother was absolutely aghast, and said "No, of course not! That wouldn't be right!" The neighborhood boy then replied, "Oh yes! In the state of Massachusetts, I can marry a man when I grow up." 


This is supposed to be an example of how damaging same-sex marriage can be to our children. And yet I see it demonstrating the reverse. I don't understand why anything in this conversation was perverse or wrong, except maybe the mother's response making the little boy feel bad or uncomfortable. But bravo to him for following up with a positive statement in the face of her negativity.


Children, especially at the age of five or six, as this little boy was supposed to have been, are notorious for declaring they're going to marry so-and-so when they grow up. Sisters say that about brothers, cousins about cousins...my own son told me when he was about four that he was going to marry me when he was "big", because I was the best mommy ever. They have no concept of romantic love or of what marriage means at this age. So more than likely, this child was only participating in the same kind of behavior, and his choice of future spouse was born of nothing more than admiration of the woman's son and something he heard from his parent(s) or on the news. 


The second option here is that this child, whether by himself or because of his parent(s), has already acknowledged and accepted a world where anyone can marry whom they love. What a wonderful, beautiful future adult he is already! And for this woman to come along and try to derail this sweet child's uninhibited acceptance of equality is just disgusting to me. Yes, she has a right to her opinion, and a right to declare at this age what her son can and cannot do. But those days won't last forever, and how is she going to feel if her son turns out to be homosexual and remembers this conversation? How is that going to affect his sense of self-worth, or his ability to come out safely? And that leads us to my final point on this leftover.


The third (and most important) option in this scenario is that the neighborhood child - even at this early age - already knows there is something 'different' or 'other' about him. I stick by my earlier statement that children in this age group do not have a true concept of romantic love. But they do know whether they are drawn more to the same sex or the opposite sex - and if they are more drawn to the same sex they can see in their friends around them that they are not in the majority. I experienced this, as did many other LGBT individuals I know. And if this conversation was a natural extension of those feelings, this mother telling him that no it was not okay and was, in fact, wrong could do unimaginable damage to his little self-image as he grows and matures. Having adults react this way to things that are normal and natural for him to feel can begin the downward spiral of self-doubt that he is not normal and natural, which can in turn lead to serious emotional issues down the line.


This is where the shame comes from that LGBT children and teens experience. It is not from inherently knowing they are "wrong" in their feelings - it is from being constantly told from all sides that it is not 'normal' and needs to be 'fixed' or changed in some way. A little girl who is African-American can see that she's different from the rest of the kids at an all-white school, but she will not be ashamed of who she is unless she is ridiculed, teased, or ostracized by the other children because of her skin color. If she is fostered in an environment of acceptance and love, then she will not doubt that she is worth as much as the other children even though she is not like them on the outside. 


The same goes for LGBT children. If they are raised in a culture of acceptance, validation, compassion, and love, they will not doubt themselves down the line and focus on how strange or weird they are compared to the 'norm'. Yes, they will still feel different - it's hard not to when the majority representation in society, the media, etc. features people that are not like you - but it will be a difference they are comfortable with because the people around them do not see  or treat them as different. The more equal LGBT individuals are made legislatively, the more confidence a child or teen (or even adult) will have because they are not second-class citizens driven to the back of the bus by society. That's not a negative effect, it's a positive effect. And I feel pity toward Mr. Mineau that he cannot see it that way.




Leftover 2:
Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of the Liberty Legal Institute, says that the homosexual community is attacking DOMA because we believe somewhere in the constitution there is a right to homosexual marriage; and further, that if we succeed it will force same-sex marriage on the entire country without anyone having the right to vote on it.


Now before your head explodes like mine did, keep in mind that the purpose of Shackelford's organization is to defend and restore religious liberty in America. Indeed, their mission statement contains the phrase, "Liberty Institute’s mission is to defend and restore religious liberty across America — in our schools, for our churches and throughout the public arena." 


So you have to take into account that he's already coming from a position of completely ignoring the idea of separation of church and state, as well as fundamentally not understanding what the phrase "religious liberty" actually means. When you look at it that way, your head might only create enough steam for a headache instead of a full-blown explosion. But then again, it might only make it worse.


Because here is the crux of every argument like this - every single one I have come across (and especially in the case of the FRC) - is centered around Christian rights. Not human rights, not civil rights, not secular rights, not Muslim rights or atheist rights or Jewish rights or pagan rights or Buddhist rights or any other religious group's rights. So tell me again, please...how is this religious freedom and religious liberty?


Yes, Christians are the majority in America. I get that. And I also get that there are hundreds of thousands of Christians that would like to give Tony Perkins & Crew a piece of their mind as much as the rest of us. But fundamentalist Christians such as these we see in the video are no less than bullies in the name of the God they claim to serve. And just because Christianity is the majority religion does not mean they get to make the rules. Just like because white people are the majority race (although not for much longer, which I think is cool), it does not mean they get to make all the rules. 


Allowing the Christian Right to dominate and say what is and is not acceptable simply by virtue of their numbers is tantamount to a Hitler situation. Yeah, I said it. And it's also awfully similar to the whole Sharia Law issue that they denounce so forcefully. The only difference between Sharia Law and what the CR wants to do is the name of the deity involved. If these people are so set to live under a theocracy, then by all means let them move somewhere that ascribes to that belief. As for the United States of America, we are a nation built on the premise of freedom - including the freedom of religion - and their "our way is the only right way" message is not welcome nor is it allowed by law.


That is what they need to remember. Claiming that homosexuality is bad because their God says it's bad falls into the camp of opinion. A misinformed opinion, but an opinion. It does not fall into any category pertaining to law and legislation, however, and it's getting out of control. For a group like Mr. Shackelford's to claim that they exist to fight for religious liberty in our country is a joke. Unfortunately it's not funny.


And no, we are not attacking DOMA because we believe there is a right to homosexual marriage in the constitution. Of course there isn't. Because with all people being equal under the law, there was no reason to write in anything specifically about homosexual marriage, just as there was no reason to write in special passages about mixed-race marriages or a woman's right to vote. When all individuals are considered equal, then all the passages from the constitution apply to them equally. It really isn't that hard, and it is concerning to me that the Christian Right cannot - or will not - see it.


Conversely, I agree with his second statement - that same-sex marriage will be forced on the entire nation without anyone having the right to vote on it. Just as the end of slavery was forced...and a women's right to vote...and marriage between people of two different races. Basic human rights are not put to a vote, nor should they be. And these people need to remember that if you create the type of society that does vote on basic human rights, you have created an avalanche that will eventually bury you underneath it right along with the rest of us.


The thing is, there are times in our history when the human condition has deteriorated so much that the people in power begin to honestly believe they speak for the nation at large. When that occurs, it comes down to the law to right the wrongs done by the entitled majority. 


This is one of those times.




Leftover 3:
We are told, during the portion where the FRC claims we are taking away their religious rights, about a college student named Julea Ward enrolled in the graduate program at East Michigan University. A state school. A public, secular, state school. Keep that in mind, because it will be important later.


Ms. Ward was removed from her graduate program because she refused to counsel a gay couple. She said that, "As a Christian, she could not in good conscience give counseling to a gay couple." And our friend Mario Bergner from earlier in the video states dramatically, "Unless she signs on the dotted line of a particular ideology regarding same-sex attraction, she can't get her education."


It has nothing at all to do with her ascribing to any ideology. If you are going to go to a public, secular state college, then there are certain things you must expect. One, that your religious views and ideas/ideals are not going to take precedence over the coursework. No other religion is expecting special treatment, but here again we see the Christian Right's incredible sense of entitlement. Secondly, you must know - especially getting into any kind of counseling field - you are going to come across things you don't believe in and things that you don't like. I'm going to assume that had she stayed with her education and on into her profession as a counselor of some sort, she would have had to face all sorts of undesirable clients. 


Murder is clearly against the Bible, as is pedophilia (which is actually what many of the passages that have been translated into "homosexual" in the Bible are referring to, but I don't want to confuse you with actual facts). So what would she do if she were placed in a situation by her employer where she had to counsel a child molester? A murderer? Someone who covets his neighbor's wife? Couples made up of remarried individuals? Because the Bible is very clear about all of those things (unlike homosexuality). And if she's going to reject a loving couple who is seeking out counseling to heal their marriage/union because she is a Christian, what in the world would she do with people exhibiting the above listed issues or other clearly forbidden things in the Bible? Not to mention if you take all of those things away, she would be hard pressed to find enough clients to even make a living.


Ms. Ward was not removed from her program because of a bias against Christians, as this documentary is trying to make it seem. She was removed for refusing to do her coursework, which would be the same result for any student that did so. And she and the FRC are so incensed about it because it flies in the face of their entitlement to do as they please without regard to the rules set in place by those in authority.




Leftover 4: (the last leftover)
Tony wraps up his 30 minutes of horribly ignorant rhetoric with a plea directed at his viewers...a call to action, if you will. He states that there are many things we can do to fight the horror of same-sex marriage and the way it is bringing about the complete destruction of society.


First, he calls us all to renew our personal commitment to our own marriage, making it everything God intended it to be. That sounds easy enough.


Oh, wait. He just means the straight people. My bad.


Secondly he reminds us that our votes do matter, and who occupies the office of President or the chairs of the Senate (and subsequently who is responsible for choosing the Supreme Court Justices) is up to us. So we're to take interest and participate in the issues surrounding the candidates, and then vote to express our preferences politically. Now that one I've definitely got. Don't worry, Tony - I'm all over the voting thing. It just might not be the way you'd want.


Third, he reminds the viewing audience that 80% of the U.S. identifies as Christian. Again, he is assuming that 1) his statistics are correct (which, given the history of this video is a big assumption); and 2) that the fact they are the majority means that they should have things their way. His audacity is mind-blowing, truly.


Lastly, he quotes scripture - 1 Timothy 2 to be specific. This chapter states, 


"2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ⁵ For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. ⁷ And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying —and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

⁸ Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. ⁹ I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, ¹⁰ but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

¹¹ A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Yeah, I can see how that would be the ideal passage for a married, white, Christian man to use in describing how best to save the world from destruction. There are so many things wrong with that passage that I just don't feel up to addressing them all in detail. Sadly, I have to touch on at least a few, since this is the ending statement he leaves us with and the standard by which he believes we are to live.

First - although this is off topic and something for which I am going to start a separate series - the book of 1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul. There is a strongly developing movement regarding the dissension between what Paul taught and what Jesus taught and the issues surrounding that fact, especially since Paul never even met Jesus. I guess Paul had a complex about this, because he takes up a whole verse letting us know he was appointed an apostle and that he's telling the truth about that- he's not lying! Anyone with a young child will recognize that argument structure right out of the gate. I know I've personally heard it many times, generally right after I find melted chocolate in their bed or get told that their report card was somehow strangely lost. I mean, who is he trying to convince here, anyway...himself or his audience? Maybe both.

Second, I hope Mr. Perkins hasn't bought his wife any gold or pearls lately, because apparently that's a no-no. Also, I hope she obeys him in quietness and submission, and doesn't ever try to assume authority over a man. I'd hate for her to be riding that bus to hell right next to me. Also, I truly hope that she was able to bear children, because apparently that is how women become saved. So sad that all these poor women who had to adopt or chose to never have kids are going to be condemned to eternal hellfire. It all could have been avoided by popping out a kid or two.

Once again, the opposition has accidentally proven for us how far outside of literally-based scriptural enforcement we have come as a society. If they are not willing to go by the literal translation of every passage, then they should go by no literal translations at all. They accuse us of "cherry picking", when it is they who do this. 

This concludes the last few points of the video I wanted to share with you. I will be writing a summary of sorts to the series and posting it tomorrow or the next day, so don't go away just yet!