Forgiveness for the Uninformed, Rage Against the News Machine / 2-6-12

Not forgiveness for the "Uniformed." That would be a very condescending post.

I kid, because defensive mechanism. In all honesty, I'm not sure what the point of this little essay is, yet. I'm going to start with a list, follow it with between one and a dozen observations, leading to a semblance of a point, perhaps gracing it all with a counterpoint, if you're lucky. I plan to offer a conclusiony item near the endy part.

(Not sure how it's all going to turn out. This is just how they teach you to operate in school. Begin to write, then think.)

Pre-thinking stage: engage.

a) Israel is thinking of starting a little war with Iran.

b) A riot killed 79 people in Egypt last week, and injured hundreds. The aftershock riot, a couple days later, killed 10 more.

c) Syria continues to knock off its citizens, day by day. Russia and China are vetoing any U.N. action.

d) Oh yeah, speaking of Russia, as hundreds of its citizens continue to die of cold, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in protest and support for apparent King Vladimir Putin.

e) The Republicans are choosing a presidential candidate, one state at a time. One guy seems to have taken charge, but it's been a pretty topsy-turvy ride so far.

f) Facebook is readying for what could be the largest IPO of all time. Hell, throw moderation out the window. This WILL be the largest one of all time.

g) Unemployment is dipping quickly.

h) Same-sex marriage is being considered/approved in three more states (WA, NJ, MN).

i) A Super Bowl was played yesterday. A good one, too. Record viewership for the game and the halftime show.

j) Outrage at the Susan B. Komen For the Cure's plan to defund Planned Parenthood caused the board to reverse its decision.

k) Citizens United is now two years old. The court case that paved the way for unlimited (unlimited!) donations from a single entity to a political campaign. It's being challenged everywhere, because most people are against bribery. (Unlimited donations! Pause for a second and think that one over.)

Those are just the top stories I can recite off the top of my head. A bit of shallow research reveals that a few other significant things are also ongoing.

l) Russian scientists are about to finish drilling through two miles of Antarctic ice and reach a pressurized underground lake that has not been explored for 100 million years. What's that again about the Mayan prophecy?

m) More European countries' debt ratings are in danger of being downgraded as they begin to deal with the consequences of unfunded spending programs. Like France and stuff. Big financial problems ahead, probably, with worldwide ramifications.

n) Fidel Castro was seen in public, touting a memoir. Remember him?

o) Hey, guess what: this little thing called "Occupy" is still happening, with peaceful protesters being mistreated by police every day, First Amendment be damned.

Thinking stage: engage.

First pointlet, then is that all that stuff listed above happened or continued to happen last week. How can a person possibly stay informed? Reading enough on each of these topics, just enough to rise above mal-informed to semi-informed, would take a person's entire trove of free time. No matter how much that person had! 168 hours might be sufficient, on a weekly basis, provided the person were a very fast reader. And possessed a time machine.

One could read headlines only. I have lots of days when that's all I can do. The experience is very unsatisfying, like a daily diet composed of fourteen snacks instead of three and a half meals.

I didn't even include any of the gossip "news" that bubbles at the surface -- Justin Bieber this, Kim Kardashian that, Brad Pitt this, MIA that. Best leave those "stories" to the professionals.

No sense in trying to stay up on the local stuff, either. Sticking strictly with national and international stories above, and just the big ones at that. Property taxes going up or serial killer strikes again in your town? You could hardly know that, unless it was your job to know so many things. So very many things.

That's why, today, pointlet two: I'm asking for and granting forgiveness to all uninformed parties everywhere. I am extending, right now, a blanket -- nay, a veritable quilt of mercy to all planetary inhabitants. You didn't know the city of Berkeley voted to pull out $300 million in assets from a large bank, so it could place the money in a more socially conscious place? Peace be with you. You didn't catch the headlines about the quake in the Philippines? Shalom anyway, Allahu Akbar and all that jazz. You holding on to something earth-shattering I didn't know about? I humbly beg your forgiveness.

There's too much information. It's too easy to disseminate. It's getting harder and harder to sort through it all, let alone keep up with a story for more than a day or two.

I'm not sure how this will turn out, still, but it appears a major point has stumbled into this post: We, as a nation, are bombarded with news. We've become are too adept at reporting stories. I submit that we have left the land of diminishing returns, news-wise, and have bravely set foot on a new patch of terra firma, where the amount of information available now places too much power in the hands of the aggregators and the opinion makers.

An amateur news-gatherer, or a semi-interested news reader, who has literally millions of informative blogs to choose from, is ironically more at the mercy now of news aggregators than ever before.

I can't stress enough how ironic the situation has become. There are hundreds of major news outlets slanted this way or that, and hundreds more trying so very hard to be unslanted. Old media and new media have merged -- you tell me how we should tell them apart. How do you find enough to make up your mind on any issue of importance? How do you find a reliable source, who will give you facts and analysis you can trust, and I don't mean based on ideology, but on sound thought processes and verifiable events?

For so very many of us, you don't. You stop by Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on your lunch hour if you're a liberal, catch some Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the car and log on at redstate for a few minutes in the evening if you're a conservative. Why? Because you're not going to spend half your day researching a major issue or story, unless it's your job.

The junkiest of new junkies among us will always devour enough material to satisfy their appetites, and if they do it right, they'll turn that information into knowledge. The rest of us? Good freakin luck.

I don't think the current state of news presentation is healthy for our republic. But I also don't have a solution. Feel free to suggest one.

144 Or Less / 12-17-11

If you mean to sign a pledge defending marriage, but instead you end up offending it, you might be Newt Gingrich.

First of all, I'm sorry -- really sorry. Secondly, you should rethink your decision to sign this.

This is, in short, the latest Republican-sponsored quixotic battle against same-sex marriage.

Given that you cheated on your first two wives, once while you were impeaching Clinton for lying about sexual indiscretions, then also while another was fighting off cancer (successfully!), you're better off signing an overt declaration of war on marriage rather than a laughable oath to "protect" it from committed people who would like their children to grow up in a stable home where two loving parents don't have to explain to their children why the government disallows their union.

Long sentence there. Shorter ones now.

Now go win the nomination, you double-talking sleazebag. Please.

(Word count: 144)

No, Huck You / 3-19-11

Fox "News" commentator, former Arkansas governor, and sometime presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, lecturing on same-sex marriage:

"The ideal world is a man and a woman, you don't go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal, that would be like saying well, there's some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them."

His words verbatim, from a radio interview February 28 of this year with host Steve Malzberg.

This has to stop. Comparing relationships between loving adults to relationships between molesters and molestees -- this has to stop. This can no longer be part of our national conversation, and that kind of talk needs to be called out for what it is: one part fear-mongering, another part ignorance, and clearly part insult.

I get it, though. Huckabee believes -- or at least pretends to believe, for political expediency -- that marriage is a covenant reserved for heterosexual unions. He doesn't want to expand that covenant outside that circle. That's the way it's been for millennia. I get it. Tradition!

So just say that. And stop there. Just state that gay couples are barred from marriage, for reasons of gender. If that's all it is. (It may be less defensible to acknowledge that you think that inheritance rights, visitation rights and custody rights are special privileges reserved for state-sanctioned heterosexual lovers. But that is the legal core of what you're implying.)

Anyway. More sentences beginning with "just": Just admit that you want traditional marriage to continue in its present form. There is very little shame in sticking to the dictionary definition of a term. Just take that route and you'll at least escape with some decency left.

Or even... just say "you don't go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that's against the ideal." Leave out the incest line.

Just say that traditional marriage is the ideal, and no substitutions are permitted. That's all. Leave room for the other side to politely argue that gender doesn't figure into the ideal. Have your conversation on those grounds.

But don't say that marriage between two women will lead to creepy old guys marrying their great-niece. Then you join the haters, and you deserve to be called out for it.

And no, it's NOT ironic to call someone hateful. It's not an ironic act for me to heap scorn on a hateful statement. I don't become hateful or intolerant for doing so. I become the person who brings daylight to a dark comment. When we get home from a two-week vacation and I tell you, "Oh man, the fridge is broken," and you open it, and you get tackled by the ripe stench of rotting asparagus dipped in curdled milk, you don't blame me for pointing out the malfunctioning appliance. (Well, not successfully, at least.)

I'll give people a chance to retreat if they want from cruel remarks. I say stuff I regret. I have compassion.

However, I don't have to tolerate hate.

To wrap up neatly: If the day comes when more than just some crackpot pervert wants to legalize incest and possibly brand it with a governmental seal of approval, then at that time, we can have that conversation. But this isn't it.

I, Republican, The Sequel / 2-5-11

Last night, I went out of my way to agree with Republican viewpoints on the current issues being spotlighted on gop.com. That post is below.

This entry is wonkier and clunkier. You should probably go do something else, something more useful, more entertaining, more unwonky and unclunky, and come back at the end for dessert.

The full 2008 platform is here.

Aaaand... go.

In the Second Amendment section, which interestingly, headlines the platform, I expected to find plenty to agree with. I can read the Constitution. (Indeed, I HAVE read it! The Second Amendment is there, in plain-ish English, saying well-regulated militias are OK, and because of that, the individual's right to own guns is to be protected.) Yet of the 197 words present in "Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms," I could only concur with "We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers," which isn't even a complete sentence. Oh well. Moving on.

In the "Equal Treatment for All" section, there is much to like. "We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes." Great.

"We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance." Good stuff. So far, so good.

As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." I'm not sure what a race-based government is, but it sounds highly inequitable, and I'm also against inequitable, so yay. This whole section is, of course, missing one key component of the nation's present struggle against discrimination, and we all know what that component is, but it's good to see a clear denunciation of hatred, even if it could use some widening.

Skipping ahead a tab, to "Freedom of Speech and of the Press," I find comfort in: "We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine." Totally agree. The Fairness Doctrine is an ill-begotten attempt to balance the opinions presented on the airwaves - i.e., if Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are given 72 hours of airtime a week, liberal viewpoints must be represented in equal proportion, and the government has a duty to make it happen. I simplify, but that brand of"fairness" is a bad idea. Let the marketplace dictate which shows thrive, and which ideas win. (The Fairness Doctrine, in case you couldn't tell or didn't care, is not currently in effect.)

And then we arrive at abortion, or as the issue if framed in the platform, "Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life." (As if anyone could oppose that... but I digress.)

Deep breath. And... go.

"We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement." I agree. Abortion is a medical procedure. A minor teenage girl should obtain parental authorization before having such a procedure performed on her body. To be thorough, I don't actually agree with the "exploitation and statutory rape" clause of the sentence. I just believe that parents have rights that supersede the privacy rights of their children under the age of 18.

"We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy." Yes. Although we might go about that moral obligation differently. Abortion is horrifying, after all, no matter where you stand on its legality. We should be helping girls and women in any way we can in their neediest moments.

"We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers." This is what I'm talking about. Don't nudge people to abortion - offer alternatives. Yes. Do this.

So, logically, the next plank in the platform is entitled "Preserving Traditional Marriage." So, skipping ahead to... but wait! Wait wait! I found something, I found something! Two sentences even! Extra exclamation points on their way!!!! (*sarcasm off*)

"The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character." So true. Studies confirm this. Google it. (I did.) Homes with two parents do produce, statistically, better-adjusted children.

"Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems." I will second this if I'm allowed to substitute "homes without fathers" to "single-parent homes." Otherwise, I have to agree with it only as it pertains to children raised by single moms compared with children raised by two parents.

The section ends this way: "As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights." Duh. I'm guessing that this is meant to tie back to the abortion issue. Now if this reasoning is used to rationalize or defend spanking, then we need to chat, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Publican. Otherwise, carry on.

Carrying on to "Safeguarding Religious Liberties," where this turns up: "We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace."

If you're going to take government money, you need to play by the government's rules. No discrimination in hiring. But if you want to form a private organization and intend on minding your own business, I'm with the R's on this: let people exclude whomever they want. the Scouts want to bar gays -- fine. Their call. Churches want to not perform gay weddings -- totally cool with them declining. But once you're on the government's dime, that all changes.

Less controversially, sort of, the "Preserving Americans' Property Rights" section ends with the sensible "We urge caution in the designation of National Historic Areas, which can set the stage for widespread governmental control of citizens’ lands." Private property is not to be trifled with. Capitalism still works better than other systems, and it only functions if the government shows restraint.

There we are. That is precisely how Republican I am. (Don't measure it.)

Observacations / 1-17-11

Been out of the office for a while. But now, break time's over, ladies and laddies.

So, did anything happen since we last spoke?

Oh. Uh-huh. Mm. 'K.

Well then, I'll touch on three topics, but not at once, because my attention span isn't what it used...

Yeah. Three rounds of politics today. A sports trifecta tomorrow. Spirituality season starts Wednesday. Then we'll be all caught up, you and me.

HOLY BEDFELLOWS, BATMAN

Well, in smack-myself-across-the-forehead news, I found myself, this holiday season, agreeing with -- wait for it -- Pat -- wait for it some more, juuust a little tiny bit more -- Robertson. Not once, but twice.

The first time was no shocker: When P-Rob declared that 2011 would not mark the end of the world, I co-nodded graciously. (No matter how many times a public figure says God likes to kill people for other people's behavior [here's your link, you're welcome], there comes a time when something resembling reason is bound to exit his speaking organs.) And after all, the man has probably read his Mayan Calendar 2012 (365 apocalyptic thoughts for every situation, $399.95 on Amazon.con), so best check back in with him for all your Armageddon needs in a year.

But the second time he and I linked minds... that was stupefying. Said Robertson: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it's just costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people." Even after his spokesman managed to float a near-lie to backtrack, claiming Pat "unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," I find myself aghast at my tattered and shredded view of the religio-conservative icon. He even went on to suggest that treatment, not incarceration, could be a better reaction to weed possession.

For twenty years, I've denounced the man. (Get it? 420 years?) And now he does this? Jerk.

That one took me a while to recover from.

RAINBOW WARRIORS

Speaking of things that failed to cause the end of civilization, discrimination against gay soldiers is officially on its way out. And none too soon. Turns out that the judicial, legislative and executive branches all have struck it down; thus, the DoD is phasing it out over the next few months. Let's be real: polling shows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Discriminate" (not the policy's actual name) had fallen seriously out of favor with a vast majority of the population. As such, the policy's demise was inevitable, but nonetheless, I'd like to advance a theory that casts Democrats in a favorable light here.

I submit:

House Democrats, late in the lame-duck session, cleverly fooled congressional Republicans into believing they would block the extension of the Baby Bush tax cuts for another two years. This after the Senate had declined to consider lifting DADT. AND after President Obama had come out supporting a tax cut extension, however tepidly. But what did the outgoing House D's have to lose? They were already about to lose their majority -- at least they could go down swinging while satisfying the far left. (Me!) While pissing off incoming Weeper of the House John "Boo-Hoo" Boehner (R-Ocryo).

Well, when negotiators discussed how to break the impasse, Democrats said that another vote in the Senate on DADT would probably pacify. Republicans, knowing popular opinion would only continue to cut against them, and wishing to fry other fish in the upcoming session, acquiesced, and framed the issue to cast moderate Republicans (in blue states) as the driving force.

And DADT dies.

It's a pretty theory. One that allows my wing to look good, and astute, too, while much, much, much more importantly, concluding another contemptible chapter in Amalgamated American Institutional Discrimination Against Gays, Inc.

CIVILITEA PARTY

In the wake of yet another mass shooting (yes, I'm gingerly approaching the Tucson mess), the usual voices have made / will make themselves heard.

"We need more gun control!" (True, but get real.)

"We need more guns!" (Seriously?)

"Give him the death penalty!" (Iron. E.)

"It's her fault!" (Not the time or place, idjits.)

"It's not my fault!" (Shut up.)

"He's a right-wing terrorist!" (5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

"He's a left-wing terrorist!" (Toldja.)

"What we need is more civility." (Pshaw--wait, what?)

We'll get more civility in our political discourse, actually. Just like we did after 9/11. Then with the distance of time, we'll revert to our hyper-partisan ways, present company included, and it'll be as if Tucson never happened. Then, fatalistically, the process will restart with another tragedy. You can hope that it doesn't take place in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

Happy New Year.

144 or Less, Vol. VI / 11-28-10

Openly Gay Republican Running For GOP Presidential Nomination! Read All About It!

My confidential sources tell me it's possible to be homosexual AND a functional member of the Republican Party. Besides, in an ironic twist, the Democratic president's Justice Department is currently fighting a conservative group (the Log Cabin Republicans) for the right to keep enforcing the military's homophobic DADT policy. More on that some wordier day.

Which got me thinking: what would disqualify one from capturing the Republican nomination? Badmouthing the NRA, I'd think.

Which got me thinking: if the gun nuts run the R caucus, which interest group owns the D party? My conclusion: the teachers' union.

Which got me thinking: I'd much rather be held hostage by the people trying to educate the country than by the people trying to put bullets in anything that moves.

(Word count: 142)

144 Or Less, Vol. II / 10-14-10

A federal judge just declared DADT unconstitutional. Naturally, the Democrats running the Justice Department will appeal.

Huh?

Saying they want to proceed with already-laid plans to phase out DADT, administration officials will fight the ruling.

Yeah. See. There exists no bad time to end discrimination, no bad way to restore dignity to soldiers who volunteered their very life to their country. Take the gift, Barack. Run with it.

Appealing makes zero sense, politically. Obama's choice to deliver the death-blow to DADT himself dampens left-wing enthusiasm and costs the D's precious midterm votes. Not a single rabid anti-gummint whiner will read today's headlines and find his mind changed or his passion to defeat the Black Socialist Secret Muslim abated.

So -- pardon my French -- BHO had better make damn well sure DADT is toast very, very soon, or he can start perusing want ads.

(Word count: 144)

We Killed Him / 9-29-10

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, we killed Tyler Clementi.

Clementi, a Rutgers freshman, jumped off the George Washington bridge last week. His body was recovered today, on the 29th.

He told us he was going to do it; he posted his plans on his facebook page earlier that evening.

Technically, Clementi did take his own life. We didn't push him off the bridge. Technically, we were sleeping, or working, or laughing with our significant other, or watching Jersey Shore, or chomping down McNuggets, or doing a million other things that didn't directly murder the fragile young man.

And you can be certain he was a tortured guy on the inside, because it takes that type of person to jump.

But we still killed him.

43 percent of us believe gay sex is morally wrong. (Poll results here.)

58 percent of us don't want to allow gays to marry. (Poll results here.)

Upwards of 90 percent of us watch videos online, including everything from Euro soccer highlights to dancing babies to classical music to Anime porn. Susan Boyle's audition for "Britain's Got Talent" garnered 100 million hits in its first nine days. It's not just because she's got talent and is British.

So when Clementi's roommate secretly filmed him having sex with another man, then posted it online, the twig he was... it just snapped.

At the intersection of omnipresent technology, voyeurism, homophobia, curiosity and immaturity, we find Clementi.

That's our address. We killed him.

And he didn't have to die. We could be a better society already, one that allows gay men and women to love each other openly in the same way straight men and women do. But we aren't. We could be a different society, one that places certain loose restrictions on online content. But again, we aren't. We could even be living in an age without the Internet. But we have it.

Indisputably, we could nurture troubled teenagers better.

Instead, when the planet dumps a Clementi in our lap, we kill him.

8 Feet Under / 8-5-10

Prop 8 died yesterday. Let's all have a moment of silen - nah, screw it. Instead? Celebration!

I can scarcely contain my glee. Not only does the invalidation of Prop 8 open up the door for hot steamy girl-on-girl action to legally become "not tonight Greta, I have a headache," but it also sticks it to the fundamentalist crowd, and that's wholly satisfying. (Get it? Get it?)

There's a point on the horizon, and we're aiming for it. This may be the scenic route, but keep in mind I'm going somewhere here. Just not quickly.

I'm gratified by this result. Prop 8 was the public's attempt to bypass the courts and mete out civil rights by majority vote, and that's a good idea, oh, never.

But why am I, and by extension, bunches of other Straight-Americans (oh yes, we liberal PC watchdogs can hyphenate ANYTHING), so pumped up that same-sex marriage rebecame legal in California? Most of us are not going to ditch our families this weekend, road-trip it down to San Francisco, and marry the first person on the street who matches our gender.

I/We are excited that America is living up to its ideals. Like equal protection under the law. Like the same civil rights applying to all non-felonious citizens. Like allowing two adults who love each other to express their love. (So OK, the third one isn't expressly mentioned in the Constitution or Declaration of F-U-Great-Britain, and I freely admit it's a controversial statement, but the pursuit of happiness is an ideal, whereas the "pursuit-of-all-happiness-EXCEPT-romantic-love" is somewhat less of an ideal.)

In case you're wondering, I'm going to gloss over the fact that SSM has not yet been re-instated in California, as the courts would prefer to see some closure on this issue from the Supreme Court (which may not even take the case) before granting marriage licenses to homosexuals again, and as the judge presiding in the case issued a stay keeping Prop 8 in effect for an undetermined period of time. Hey, I'll take the victories where I can get them.

Anyway, the point tonight is, why should a hetero guy care whether or not a bunch of gays can marry? I've actually been asked that question. And I usually answer with some variant of the paragraph up there earlier, the one about ideals.

But just as importantly, I'm really growing weary of all the hate. All the exact same arguments that people made for denying marriage to interracial couples have resurfaced in the fight for SSM. All the ugly views of gays as a subhuman species bubble up to the surface, and they make me angry. I've had gay friends, gay co-workers, gay bosses, and the fact that a large group of people wants them to be unhappy for reasons of sexual orientation... that boils my blood, and I will fight that crowd whenever the opportunity presents itself.

It's the right thing to allow an adult to love the adult of his or her choice. It's an ideal worth taking a stand for. We already fought the slavery battles, the race-related civil rights battles, the women's suffrage battles. Those are done and won. But this one remains. I'd just as soon be on the side of the good guys this time around.

P.S. The judge who ruled Prop 8 must go? He's a conservative, appointed by Reagan. He is.

A Fortunate Series of Events / 7-23-10

Why yes, I do continue to rip off everyone and everything for my headlines. Thanks for noticing.

I wrote about 3,529 posts on gay rights last year, but have neglected to wrap up some loose ends on that topic. (Goody!)

As it turns out, we do have an open democratic process in this country, when we take the trouble to defend it.

The Supreme Court thinks so too. It said as much last month, when the Supremes ruled 8-1 that if you want a referendum on the ballot and you sign your name to get it there, that becomes a matter of public record.

From Chief Justice John Roberts, who I would usually only quote in a fit of mockery, but not this time, I suppose: "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."

Add a tally to the side in favor of an open records; subtract a point (more, if you feel like it) from the fearmongering hatecrowd. (Fine, OK, you have permission to take all their points.)

So what we had happen here in the last year or so, chronologically:

1. State legislators decide all adult citizens should have same civil rights
2. Angry people think that's a bad idea
3. Angry people seek anonymity even as they sign petition to get their anti-equality referendum on the ballot
4. Angry people win skirmish in lower court, receive anonymity
5. Secretary of State sues to make list of referendum signers public
6. Referendum fails anyway. Voters affirm civil rights actually apply to all citizens! (Narrowly. But still.)
7. Case makes its way to the Supreme Court
8. Open records win!
9. Gay couples continue to inch closer to full equality with straight married citizens.
10. We wait for court injuction to be lifted, and names become public.

And then, of course, 11: Violent Bitter Gay People get a hold of the list of referendum's signers and harass them mercilessly. Things escalate, and many people are injured and/or killed. Riots ensue.

Oh, that? That's just the theory put forward by the group dedicated to keeping civil rights segregated to their favorite list of Americans. Yeah, those people are generally right on the money, so that's probably what'll happen. Uh huh.

P.S.: WA Secretary of State Sam Reed and AG Rob McKenna, both Republicans, praised the Supreme Court's decision. Good for them. I generally like those guys. I voted for them once and I will again.

Fathers' Day / 6-20-10

The apostrophe is in the right place.

So you know me, I'm perfectly willing to give the other side a chance to present its views, to make an argument, and I will listen with an open mind. That being said, I reserve the right to point out idiocy when it pops up. Or indefensible positions. Or easily debunked claims.

The Prop 8 trial gave us all of the above. The other side's people (the warm-hearted folks seeking to keep same-sex marriage illegal in CA through the continuance of Prop 8) had a chance to express their lovely views. And in a splendid trifecta, their lawyers filled all three stoopid boxes. Somebody say Bingo!

In the Idiocy Category, we were treated to: "You need only go back to your chambers, Your Honor, and pull down any dictionary, pull down any book that discusses marriage, and you will find this procreative purpose at its heart wherever you go."

That's a quote from the closing argument of pro-Prop 8 lawyer Charles Cooper, who spent the trial insisting that marriage's existence rests upon the foundation of procreation, that the two are inseparable. And he's right, in a way. People can make kids when they're married. (I should know.) And they often do. (They do.) But you have to ignore so many facts, circumstances and reality-based real events that really happen to real people in order to define the purpose of marriage as "It's there to help us make babies." Yet that's what he did all spring long, as this trial progressed: make the argument that procreation is an essential component of wedlock, so folks who can't procreate don't qualify. More on that later.

Cooper's a gem. More from him, on that same day (Thursday, since you asked):

"Marriage is to channel the sexual behavior between men and women into a procreative union. The state's main concern in regulating marriage and seeking to channel procreation is to minimize what I would call irresponsible procreation. The state doesn't need to worry about irresponsible sexual procreation with same-sex couples. Same sex-couples must be responsible to procreate."

Remember, he's fighting to keep SSM illegal, so I had to read what he said again and again to decipher it. It sounds like he's saying that marriage is there because kids do better when they're raised by a married couple. And that same-sex marriage would cut down on unwanted kids. And that responsible procreation would happen with gay parents.

Wait, whose side is he on again? I'm so confused.

In the Indefensible Position Category, I offer you this: Prop 8 itself.

The Supreme Court (of the United States, perhaps it rings a bell?) has stated the following:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." That's from a 1967 decision.

Then, the same Burrito Supreme Court stated in 2003: "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here [sodomy] was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." This was the argument the court used to strike down anti-sodomy laws.

So the Nacho Supremes are saying marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right (a "basic" one!) and homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected.

So same-sex marriage is unconstitutional how? Oh right, because you can't make kids out of it. Clearly, Sterile-Americans who plan to wed shouldn't bother to apply for a license. And you guys, you two widowers out there whose combined age just hit 168? Marriage is out of bounds. You know, constitutionally. Your union is unhelpful to society. Because you can't generate any kids (hopefully). Yeah, I'm sorry about that emergency hysterectomy you had when you were a teenager, you know, after that nasty car accident. No wedding for you. For legal reasons.

Laughable. Just laughable. Or at least it would be, if professional lawyers weren't trying so hard to make those arguments.

(Speaking of interesting positions, my research turned up the fact that convicted child molesters are permitted to marry in California. Not gay ones. Straight ones, mind you. Just saying. Of course they can, and I don't want to deny them anyway: marriage is a "basic civil right," after all.)

In the Easily Debunked By Actual Scientific Evidence Claims Category, zees ees wut aye hav, voila:

"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls. I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."

That's one conclusion of a 25-year study (uh, 25 years, chew on that for a while) which aimed to track the development of kids raised by lesbian mothers. The head researcher, one Nanette Gartell, gave us that money quote earlier this month. Suprisingly, the study was NOT commissioned by and published on communistgaysex.blogspot.com, but in the esteemed journal Pediatrics.

So how do you fight for Prop 8 again? I mean, the haters' lawyers have to have more bullets in their guns, right? More arguments? Better rationales?

They don't. But that doesn't mean the fight will end when judge Vaughn R. Walker issues his ruling, expected sometime this summer but not until at least July. Both sides' attorneys have signaled their intent to appeal to the California Taco Supreme Court, and perhaps even to the highest court in the land, the one that has already established that homosexual intercourse is legal and marriage is a fundamental right.

I wish I felt optimistic.

They Can't Be Serious... Right? / 5-25-10

In my web travels, I found this. I have to re"print" it. With minimal comment.

"What do homosexuality, the health-care overhaul and British advertising standards all have in common? They're all things that have ticked God off, some religious leaders say, and he's venting his frustration with the angry fires of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

Moscow's Interfax newswire reported that the Association of (Russian) Orthodox Experts called the April 14 eruption -- whose gigantic cloud of ash grounded transatlantic flights for more than a week -- a response to gay rights in Europe and Iceland's tolerance of "neo-paganism." Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said God was angry over health-care legislation. San Antonio megachurch pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said God was unleashing his wrath on Britain for deciding that Israeli tourism ads featured parts of the disputed Palestinian territories, not Israel."

Blogger Omar Sacirbey splashed this on the Washington Post's site on May 1. I'm simply passing it along for your enjoyment, with the completely unnecessary postscript that all the parties named therein deserve your scorn and ridicule. Laugh away.

You Don't Ask, Don't Tell, What Do You Do? / 5-25-10

Let's combine two stories here. And I think I now owe royalties to the Adam And the Ants or something.

Story One: Dude who claims homosexuals can be cured of the disease of being gay, and who once charged taxpayers $120,000 for an appearance in court to serve as an expert witness, goes on 10-day vacation to Europe with gay male escort he found online. Good story all on its own. Juicy and everything. Follow the links. They're great. But wait. There's more.

Story Two: Same dude's activist group, the Family Research Council (co-founded with fellow gay-hater James Dobson), placed an ad in Politico Tuesday, asking oh so rhetorically, "What do Kagan, Levin and Pelosi have in common? Using the military to advance their radical social agenda." (It's nice they answered their own question. I was worried they'd just let it sit out there, lonely and ambiguous.)

Superfluous But Fun Background: Elena Kagan is President Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee. Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. Nancy Pelosi, you may have heard, is the Speaker of the House. Her district is in San Francisco, so she's automatically evil and is to be opposed as a matter of principle, no matter what.

Combo Story: The FRC is worried that Congress might repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law that gives gays the distinct privilege of being dishonorably discharged from the military for being, well, you know, GAY. Which has happened to 13,000 homosexuals since the policy's implementation. Rekers may have conveniently "left" the FRC and its subsidiaries, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try and deny equal rights to gay citizens. (Wonder how Rekers feels about their efforts now.)

Congress is in fact considering a repeal, which would take effect Dec. 1 if approved by important people such as the President, the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Gays would be allowed to serve openly, as they do in places like Israel, Russia, and Great Britain. I should mention, however, that those nations have been tragically invaded by non-gay armies in recent years and will soon cease to exist entirely.

My unsolicited advice to gay-rights opponents, in Congress or otherwise: Don't get in the way of this repeal. It's hateful and you're on the wrong side of history. Oh, and the wrong side of public opinion, too, but that's kind of inconsequential here, as far as the ethics of the situation go. As far as your re-election efforts go, that's up to you. Yes, I'm speaking to you, Scott Brown.

One way I've been considering the validity of DADT is by framing it through the lens of equal opportunity employment practices. Ask yourself if you agree with the statement: "Should the U.S. military be allowed to not hire gay men and women?" Then, for fun, substitute the military for Microsoft. Or Jamba Juice. Or Wal-Mart.

I realize the job description of "armed forces operative" isn't exactly equivalent to that of "superstore greeter." (There may be plenty of crossover. I've never been either of those things, so feel free to enlighten me.) Bottom line: discrimination is discrimination, no matter its professional location. And I don't think that's what I want my country to be about.

A Quickie But a Goodie / 11-4-09

Going to let this one incubate for a day or two before a full post comes out. Until then, here's some instant reaction.

I'm relieved AND proud AND ashamed at the preliminary election results this time around.

Relief category: R-71 passed. Gay couples (and let's not forget, senior citizens in heterosexual domestic partnerships, too) get to keep their rights. Fred and Ned may not have a marriage certificate to frame and put up on the wall, but they remain equal to a married couple under the law. That's worth celebrating. We are all freer today as a result. A semi-anonymous poster on a popular website put it like this: "It is a travesty that people have to fight for equal rights, when it allegedly already exists. If one group of people, or even one person is being discriminated against and denied rights, then none of us are truly free."

Relief bonus: While counted ballots gave R-71 only a 51-49 edge at 1 a.m., it's estimated that most of the uncounted votes are from King County, where the ballot measure enjoys a 2-1 advantage in the Yes column. So it's going to pass.

Pride category: I'd just started to read a Danny Westneat column on the historical progression of gay rights when he delivered this nugget: "it appears Washington state will be the first in America to approve a gay-equality measure not by court fiat or legislative action, but by the direct will of the people. It's never happened before. If the slim lead holds for the gay-partnership law Referendum 71, it would be a landmark."

That floors me. Several states permit same-sex marriage. If Dannyboy's research is money, it IS a big deal. I'll work on confirming that.

Shame category: Somewhere along the lines of 49 percent of the electorate opted to REMOVE rights from a set of citizens. I can almost understand why homophobes would vote to not GIVE rights to gay couples. An initiative along the lines of "Should we the people of Washington state extend every right enjoyed by married couples to gay couples?" is going to cause folks to hide their bigotry behind excuses. Lame excuses like "marriage is a privilege, not a right" and "marriage holds the fabric of our society together, its rights are not to be disseminated." People can rationalize anything they set their heart to, provided they have some sort of cover.

But to take away someone's rights... that's hard to pass off as anything but contempt for the basic humanity of the gay man and woman. There's no excuse for that attitude. There's no fancy hiding behind fancy reasoning available there. That kind of hatred is exposed, obvious, naked. And somehow, half of us in this state chose that option. Disgusting.

(I'll weigh in on the rest of the election results later, specifically on how R's need to temper their glee at taking the VA and NJ governorships, and how D's need to not get too worked up about their two wins in House races.)

The Decepticons / 10-11-09

Nothing to do with Transformers. I'll explain the headline at the end.

I went and forced myself to click on the "Reject R-71" web page, just to see what the gay-bashers are up to. All right, look, I'm sorry. But I did not visit said site in an effort to increase site traffic and enhance legitimacy of said site. I will not even link to it. That would make my fingers explode with shame, which is a nonsensical image, but hey, it's my blog.

(Quick recap: To reject R-71 would remove civil rights from senior domestic partners and gay couples. Approving R-71 is the way to affirm the WA Legislature did the right thing earlier this year when it extended privileges like business succession rights, workers' compensation coverage, visitation rights, custody rights and insurance rights to ALL its citizens in committed relationships, not just the married ones.)

So anyway, over at the site that makes my soul feel unclean, there's a page dedicated to "Talking Points." Apparently, if you want to rationalize and defend your bashing of gays, these talking points are designed to be useful tools in that struggle. Or if you've been ordered to reject R-71 but you don't know why, you could just read the talking points, memorize them, and leave your brain in park, as you've been doing for your whole life.

I know this will come as a heart-stopping surprise, faithful readers, but each talking point is deceptive and/or misleading.

(And by the way, what does it say about your organization when its officially sanctioned talking points contain layers of deception?)

So I thought it would make me feel better to list each talking point and identify the deceptive or misleading content. It's more mature than yelling "YOU LIE!" in a public gathering. Although I've heard that also makes people feel better. But still, on with the show.

Talking Point 1) "Senate Bill 5688 includes the phrase, 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered Domestic Partnerships' over a hundred times."

All righty then. To verify this claim, I went and read the bill. (What a concept.) Turns out, that phrase is indeed all over the text, yes, dozens of times. Only EVERY time it appears, it's as a part of the following: "references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved or invalidated." Every time. Which is clearly not at all what the anti-gay crowd is implying with TP 1).

Oh, and two can play at this game. Let's take a little something Jesus said. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you." That's Matthew 18:34-35, New International Version, with all the words in perfect sequence, I didn't even have to mess with them or begin mid-sentence. Context sure can be a real bitch, huh.

TP 2) "Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' to be interpreted as gender neutral. The wording in the bill says, "Where necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships."

All right. I have a hard time understanding why this talking point makes the cut, although I'm not completely dense, and I do suspect it has something to do with officially replacing gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Still, someone is going to have to explain to me what makes this such a great TP. Obviously, if the bill's intent is to allow for unmarried cohabitating straight seniors or gay partners to have their domestic partnerships, then the language of "husband" and "wife" is no longer super-useful to describe the partners. You need those terms to be more flexible, so making them neutral is just good legislation. I may not be very misled or deceived here, but I sure am cornfused. Should I be angry? Relieved? What?

TP 3) "If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act and impose 'same-sex marriage' (as happened in California prior to Proposition 8). Referendum 71 brings this society changing measure before the people of Washington State to let them make this monumental decision in November."

This litigation of DOMA you fear: It's going to happen regardless of the result next month on R-71. And the litigants will win a case someday, for the same legal reasons they won in California. You can't stop it. And even if you could, this referendum isn't the way to stop it, since even if you win this time around, the legislature will pass a SB 5688 clone next session.

Also, you're just guessing. Unless you plan to file the lawsuit yourself. (As Jon Stewart might say: "Duuuuu-bi-oussssssssssssssssss.")

TP 4) "Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family."

OK, let's skip past the circular logic of the first sentence and tackle the second sentence. I will bet my house, and maybe yours too, that the vast, vast, vast majority of these "thousands of studies" are focused on children raised in single-parent homes vs. those raised in two-parent homes. And I'm not going to pretend that a single parent can, IN GENERAL, do a better job of fulfilling the emotional, physical, and financial needs of a child or children than two parents can. That's just common sense. (Did I say, "In general" loud enough?) Which is what a study will invariably conclude, time after time after thousandth time.

But how many studies compare the emotional/physical health of kids raised in same-sex marriages with that of kids raised in straight marriages? That's the info that might be pertinent here; not the "non-traditional family" mountain of evidence. Very impressive bit of misleading there, gay-haters.

TP 5) "Criminalization of free speech and 'anti-bullying' laws follow the legalization of same-sex 'marriage'. In a few short months after legalizing same-sex 'marriage' in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!"

First of all, next time, lose the exclamation point. It's juvenile. Second of all, don't use the example of a foreign country's free speech legislation to illustrate what might happen here. Canada's free speech laws don't apply south of their border... OR DO THEY??!! Come on. Misleading, with a side serving of scare tactics thrown in.

(Oh, I GET to use exclamation points. In an ironic way.)

TP 6) "If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex 'marriage' and homosexuality are perfectly normal."

They may well be "forced" to teach that being gay no longer automatically exempts you from certain rights, especially in civics classes or American politics or social studies or something along those lines. But as long as same-sex marriage remains illegal in Washington, and it still will be against the law a month from now after the election, I doubt the public school system will deem SSM normal. The schools don't make a habit of endorsing illegal behavior. Except for that smoke-in last week in my first-grader's classroom. That was fun. Good weed, too.

But the real deception here is the none-too-subtle implication that kindergartners or early elementary students are going to be discussing those topics. Not really in the curriculum for that age group, people. But thanks for the "Our teachers are going to turn all our 5-year-olds into gay America-haters" scare tactic.

TP 7) "Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!"

Again with the punctuation thing? Whatever. But if you're going to fight against the right of homosexuals to live as they choose, to attain the same set of rights straight people have access to, you should not begin your final talking point with the opposite of what you believe.

In that case, you're just engaging in some pretty heavy self-deception.

Done with that. I DO feel better. Oh wait, yeah, I promised an explanation of the headline. Well, the Reject R-71 crowd is made up of mainly conservatives. Or "cons" for short. The talking points are deceptive. Surely you get it now.

Sure, We Hate, But At Least We're Cowards About It / 9-11-09

In the latest skirmish over whether items of public record may be viewed by the public, the side aiming to keep open records from being open has won a round.

(Not that you can tell where I stand on this issue.)

Judge Benjamin Settle today granted the request of Protect Discrimination Washington, I mean, Protect Prejudice Washington, I mean, Protect CivilRightsDenialIsAFunGame Washington, to keep the signatures of R-71 under wrap of secrecy. For the time being.

To its credit, the Secretary of State's office and now the state's Attorney General wish to appeal so the signatures will become part of the public record, as they have been for past initiatives.

(R-71 is a citizens' initiative aimed at removing certain civil rights granted gay couples earlier this year by the state legislature. It will appear on the November ballot. A yes vote on the initiative, perversely, keeps those civil rights intact. Vote no if you're in favor of hate.)

Got this from the Seattle Times:

"Settle said people have a right to participate anonymously in the political process, and the state's Public Records Act is likely unconstitutional because it abridges that right. The decision alarmed state officials and public records advocates, who said he misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent and would eviscerate open government laws."

So, a silver lining. Good.

More from the Times:

"But state Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn't shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls - nothing that would 'be appropriate to overturning the state's strong tradition for open government.' "

I feel better. Well, not better. But hopeful. Meanwhile, YES on R-71.

And the rant goes on... / 9-4-09

I know, I know, I'm not exactly coherent tonight. The more I write about gay rights, the more passionate I get about the issue. And I hear the most inane things from people who appear at first to have brains and cognitive capacity. All of which makes me even more ranty than usual.

I'm sorry, but "Marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore marriage is between a man and a woman" is not a valid argument to deny gay partners the right to marry.

I'm sorry, but "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it's wrong" is not a valid argument in any debate. The Bible also says the sun stood still for a day (Joshua 10: 1-15), and that poses quite a few physics-related problems. And I'm not even going to get into Leviticus.

I'm sorry, but "If it's a good enough code for me to live by, it's good enough for everyone to live by" is not a valid argument. Do you see any way through which that might backfire? Like maybe if more than one opinion, one philosophy, one religion happened to exist side by side the same country?

I'm sorry, but the founders did not directly quote Scripture in the U.S. Constitution, so let's keep it out of state constitutions too, okay? You want to use it to make a point? Sure. But that doesn't give you the green light to cut and paste it into law.

I'm sorry, but your marriage is not threatened by allowing Kurt and Burt to tie the knot. You have lost no rights; the certificate is still valid. More to the point, you still need to listen to your spouse on occasion if you want the relationship to last. Look, you still need to floss at night if you want to avoid gum disease; your neighbor's flossing habits, or lack thereof, are not magically going to impact your own. (Yes, I DID just compare listening to your spouse to flossing.)

*briefly pauses rant, takes breath*

It's something, at least / 9-4-09

Here's my first volley in the R-71 battle.
While we wait for the courts to decide if the signatures on R-71 are to remain public, I have something only semi-wasteful of your time that you can ponder.
When you click here, you'll be directed to No on R-71, which is acting as an anti-gay-rights home page of sorts for Washingtonians; it's put together by the same folks who brought you the initiative in the first place. Click through the members. See if you recognize someone. If you do, consider sending them a message. Something polite.
("F*cking hater! Get your slimy holier-than-thou paws off my friend's sex life!" is probably not your best strategy.)
Something like "Gays are entitled to civil rights too. Please consider that R-71 is not about marriage, but about about guaranteeing equal rights to gay couples in matters such as visitation rights, medical care, estate planning, and power of attorney. These are options you take for granted, but which you seemingly want to deny to gay partners, and I wish you would reconsider. Thanks for listening." That will have a more than 0 percent success rate. Not much more, granted, but it'll also make you feel better, which is something.
Oh, you can follow this link too, it's the same.

Spouting / 9-4-09

OK, R-71 qualified for the November ballot. I've moved past denial and bargaining. Trying to sort through anger, planning on skipping depression, moving toward acceptance.
(R-71 is an citizens' intiative here in Washington aiming to remove civil rights the legislature granted gay couples earlier this year.)
But I want to get into the public-record side of things. The group that got R-71 on the ballot, Misguided So-Called Christians With Nothing Better To Do, er, I mean Protect Marriage Washington, is fighting the release of the names of folks who signed their petition.
Those signatures are public record, under state law; the group's attorneys are asking for the names to remain sealed. A Tacoma judge says he'll review the case and might rule as early as Thursday as to whether anonymity is granted.
From R-71 attorney Sarah Troupis, quoted at seattletimes.com: releasing the signatures "directly leads to the threats, harassment and reprisals that we worry citizens of Washington will be subject to."
Let me get this straight. (No pun intended.)
You want to use our system of government, which operates on the assumption of open records, to further marginalize a group of citizens, and you want the folks who support your efforts to remain anonymous.
You're afraid that the people you are trying to take civil rights away from will get upset? I grant you that. I'm hopping mad, and it's not even my rights you're directly messing with.
You're afraid they'll turn violent? Hmm. Is that because you view gays in general as somehow sub-human creatures, predisposed to assault you for your opinions? After all, you are trying to put them in a second-class box.
Let's expose hate and discrimination for what they are. Let's have the signatures out in the open, like they have been for every other initiative in state history, and let the chips fall where they may. If a signer of R-71 gets beat up, prosecute the offender for a hate crime, but please, let's not begin to operate this government in secrecy and fear. Instead, may the best ideas win.
P.S. 1. Oh yeah, I don't think excluding gays from civil rights married couples have access to is going to be that best winning idea. But knock yourself out.
P.S. 2. I will be posting extensively on this topic.

Out / 6-27-09

Three disclaimers are in order here, before we get going.

1. This isn't going to happen in your mainstream Sunday morning worship service.
2. Exorcisms are documented in the Bible.
3. The teenager is said to have requested the "procedure."

With that out of the way...

"Rip it from his throat! Come on, you homosexual demon!" a woman yells. "You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now! Loose your grip, Lucifer!"

She's addressing the body of a 16-year-old boy.

"Come out of his belly," someone commands. "It's in the belly. Push."

The teenager submits. Several people are holding him immobile. He vomits.

"Get another bag," a voice calls out. "Make sure you have your gloves."

Those are the "highlights" from the casting out of a homosexual demon. It happened recently in a small Connecticut church. The video got posted on youtube but the church took it down soon thereafter. Not soon enough.

(For the video, by the way, click here, that should do it. I feel like I should include a warning, but I guess we're all big boys and girls here.)

So the church's pastor, later, offers this explanation, which I got from msnbc.com, so take it for what it's worth.

"He was out of control in the church," she said. "This young man came to us. We didn't go to him." She wasn't calling it an exorcism, choosing instead to term it a casting out of spirits. "He was dressing like a woman and everything. And he didn't want to be like that," she said.

It's easy to get mad at all kinds of people here. The pastor, the churchgoers, the larger Christian community, the kid himself. For my part, I wonder if the church routinely performs other exorcism-type services. Like for stealing. Or for pride, or maybe even for adulterous behavior. For lust? It sounds like I'm being flippant, but I'm not -- maybe they do. I can see that happening... some congregations are pretty immersed in the Angels vs. Demons business. So maybe during this particular "casting out" adventure, everyone got a little carried away because of the gayness factor? No... my gut tells me this is just another way for small minds to brand homosexuals as the scary subhuman other.

The video leaves me a little sad, plenty angry and more than a little ashamed, as a guy who still likes to call himself a Christian. But maybe the fact it got publicized nationally and then got mentioned on a few thousand blogs here and there will change something somewhere.

I'm left shaking my head. And thinking the same thing as this gay rights advocate, quoted in the same msnbc.com story: "What saddens me is the people that are doing this think they are doing something in the kid's best interests, when in fact they're murdering his spirit."