NYC Day of Decision Rally

The cops were surprised by our numbers. Nice turn out.

Learn how to lobby your NY Senator by going here: www.meny.us

And don't forget about Queens this Sunday.

Contrast

The contrast between two marriage rallies yesterday in NYC couldn't have been greater. In the early part of the day I jumped uptown to attend an anti-marriage equality rally organized mostly by a group of Hispanic and Latino church goers who despite their insistence that Jesus loves us feel very strongly that gays do not deserve equal rights.

The number of people defending the gay name and standing up for marriage equality was small if not minute. A smattering of the usual faces with a dab of young lesbians. Small signs and a few banners. We were outnumbered 10,000 to 30. We stood at our barricades, mostly in silence, and held our signs as men and women, old and young, many accompanied by a small child yelled, "One man and one woman!" "Read the bible!" "Jesus loves you!" and "God bless you!" As a Jew, all this Jesus/God bless you stuff is always hard to stomach but when you see first hand the degree to which these people truly dislike you and use God's name to defend their twisted logic it leaves the feeling of a sucker punch to the soul. Their "God bless you" and "Jesus loves you!" reeked of being inauthentic and that was later proved when the sound of their mass applause carried up several blocks into our ears. It sounded like an army preparing for a battle. Combative, charged and ghastly. It's been a long time since I felt that kind of hate. It was ugly and simple in it's color. Black and white. The people rejoicing in their efforts to keep gays as second class citizens were bleak and boring, scared and traditional. Old world. They showed nothing but commitment to keeping this world as colorless and dry as possible. As I write this I'm still trying to shake the shiver of hearing their roaring applause traveling upwind. It was clear sooner than later that this was an anti gay rally and had little to do with marriage.

But the protest ended and those of us remaining shook hands and went our separate ways until the pro-marriage rally later in the day. Weighed down by what I just experienced I was craving a distraction. Some reminder that despite the mass of people I just witnessed that there are people who love us, who care for us and would like to see us equal. I ran into Elmo in Time's Square and he helped cheer me up. We both thanked Governor Paterson for supporting marriage equality and a smile returned to my face.

At 5PM at 45th St. and 6th Ave. a mass of young and old, gay and straight, white, Black, Asian, Latino, Everything gathered in celebration of equal rights and marriage. Immediately the crowd was everything the morning crowd wasn't. We were full of life, optimism and energy. Color flowed out from everyone as did hugs and handshakes, smiles and "how are ya's." Our signs were smart and creative. This is when everything started to feel a lot better because I was reminded what gay is and why we're fighting for equal rights. Because we matter. Because our color and contribution to this country, to this world, matters and I'll be damned if the color we bring to the fabric of humanity goes unnoticed and remains unequal. While the morning's anti-marriage rally featured men in suits and black clothing ours featured vibrancy and singing and the perfect combination of comedy and anger. It was all a very nice moment and to have our Governor and Mayor speak to us, in support of us, gave a certain validation that things are going to change. Those people at the morning's rally will be on the losing end of this fight. We aren't going anywhere any time soon and I know we will keep rallying, keep screaming and keep bringing color to this world until our voices are heard and our lives and families appreciated.

Look Familiar?

Past to Present:

Light Up the Night: Miami

I happen to be in Miami for work and I also happened to be in South Beach, right near the intersection of Washington and Lincoln, when I ran into the JoinTheImpact Light Up the Night Candle Light Vigil.

Rage on, Miami.

Tonight: 2 Meetings 1 Center

The Center is holding two meetings tonight regarding equal rights/marriage equality.

Tonight- Wednesday December 3rd:

Marriage Equality NY: 6PM- 8PM Room 410
Join the Impact Meeting: 7:30PM-9PM Room 212.

Unfortunately I won't be able to attend either as I've been long locked into helping host and MC the end of season Dodgeball party at Splash. But hey, at least I can't criticize the lack of attendance. ;)

Monday: Town Hall Meeting with Marriage Equality New York

After the protests everyone has been all, "What's going on? Where do we go? What do we do? What's next?"

This Monday November 24th from 6PM-7:30 The NY LGBT Center is holding a Town Hall meeting with Marriage Equality New York to discuss what's going on and where to go from here.

On Monday, November 24th, we will join with Marriage Equality New York for a town hall meeting to discuss impact of the election results, not just in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkasas, but also right here in New York State. We'll have a full update on the New York State Senate, the situation with Senators Ruben Diaz, Sr. and Malcolm Smith, and a discussion of next steps for achieving marriage equality in the Empire State.

The inevitable Activism 4.0 Facebook event page is here.

Bilerico Liveblogs with Anti-amendment Leaders

Thursday night Bilerico Project will be hosting a liveblog with Kate Kendell, Nadine Smith and Barbara McCullough-Jones.

These three women led the efforts to defeat marriage amendments in California, Florida and Arizona. Kate and Nadine are Bilerico Project contributors and Barbara is a frequent guest poster. They'll take your questions and comments about Prop 8, Amendment 2, and Prop 102, the recent protests and what went wrong. Best of all, they'll talk about where we go from here. Bil Browning from Bilerico will be hosting alongside Pam Spaulding of Pam's house blend.

Sign up below to get an e-mail reminder of the liveblog.

National Protest: NYC

In another protest of massive numbers the LGBT people of NYC and their allies rallied in support of equal rights and national recognition. The event was as packed and inspiring as Wednesday night's event at the LDS Chruch in uptown Manhattan.

With more time to organize and taking notes from Wednesday's event this protest honed in on what is happening within NY politics, who we should keep our eyes on and to further carry the fight for our national equal rights.

There were significant decline in Mormon-related signs, which I think is a step in the right direction, and a notable surge in signs relating to general equality, unity and upbeat remarks on hypocrisy. The crowd covered the spectrum of age ranges and races with a special shout out to those in their early twenties. Speakers ranged from politicians to local celebrities and artists and throughout the two hour event the pulse in the crowd remained attentive and energized.

This tidal wave is growing and we are all riding it's crest.

Video above is shot by Father Tony and features me and Paul of Habitat67 trying to stir up some energy. I could only get through a few versus before my throat blew out but I expected everyone else to follow along. Well, not so much. But it sure is one hell of a good time trying to do so. Also in the video is David of Someone in a Tree and a cameo by my friend and actor Wilson Cruz.

Equal Rights w/ Lil David
Photos: John Nalley

2004 / 2008

The spot below is something I have posted before as it is one of my favorite pieces of short-based media. The spot was originally created for the show opening of the 2004 GLAAD Media awards and is produced, directed and edited by my good friend David Daigle of Los Angeles.

Although the piece was made in 2004 and the media in it is reflects that time, the core of the piece is still, ultimately, relevant today. This piece always moves me - and I hope it inspires you to attend tomorrow's nationwide City Hall protests. Jointheimpact.com for all national protest info.

David Daigle is handling and working with a lot of the media regarding the Prop 8 protests. Please visit his website for contact information and other media inquires.

Action Alert!: NYC Prop 8 Protest

This just in...

Wednesday, November 12, 2008
6:30pm - 8:00pm
New York Manhattan Mormon Temple

125 Columbus Ave at 65th Street NY, NY

Tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters are in the streets in California and Salt Lake City and around the country protesting the votes banning same-sex marriage in California.

Join them! Make your voices heard right here in New York City.

We will tell the Mormon Church how we feel about its relentless campaign to condemn and control our lives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was, by far, the biggest financer of California's heinous and hateful Proposition 8. The Mormon Church begged their members to donate money to Prop 8, pouring 20 million dollars into the campaign. And their attacks on us didn't start there and aren't about to end. They're plotting right now to bring their money and influence to bear against the LGBT community everywhere in this country, including trying to prevent marriage equality in New York.

Join us in speaking out against Mormon hate! Stop them taking away your rights!

PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION - BRING SIGNS -- ALERT THE MEDIA

Facebook link here

Reports from CA are that people are getting wildly creative with their signs and actions. I thinks it's tremendous that New York is speaking out.
UPDATE: 10,000+ marched in Silverlake last night! Videos and article here.

Donate to No On 8

So shit has hit the fan and the Yes on 8'ers, the people who support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and writing discrimination into our constitution, are pulling into a dead heat with those who support equality rights.

I don't have very much money in my bank account right now but I donated what I could. Please go ahead and do the same. They need as much help as we can offer!

The link to donate is here: http://www.noonprop8.com/

Send an email to your friends, family, coworkers and remind them that No on 8 isn't about same-sex marriage as much as it is about discrimination!

Ignorance is [Sexual] Bliss

Oh, articles like this make me feel all warm and bubbly and pregnant right inside. I feel as right as an evangelical zealot!

According to an article from The New Yorker, entitled "Red Sex, Blue Sex" teenagers having more sex than any other teenagers are (drum roll please) evangelicals! To top it off, they're (drum roll please) less likely to practice safer sex techniques!

Aww, who would have thunk it?

During the campaign, the media has largely respected calls to treat Bristol Palin’s pregnancy as a private matter. But the reactions to it have exposed a cultural rift that mirrors America’s dominant political divide. Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t choose to have an abortion.

A handful of social scientists and family-law scholars have recently begun looking closely at this split. Last year, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, published a startling book called “Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers,” and he is working on a follow-up that includes a section titled “Red Sex, Blue Sex.” His findings are drawn from a national survey that Regnerus and his colleagues conducted of some thirty-four hundred thirteen-to-seventeen-year-olds, and from a comprehensive government study of adolescent health known as Add Health. Regnerus argues that religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior, and that this gap is especially wide among teen-agers who identify themselves as evangelical. The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents—seventy-four per cent—say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. (Only half of mainline Protestants, and a quarter of Jews, say that they believe in abstinence.) Moreover, among the major religious groups, evangelical virgins are the least likely to anticipate that sex will be pleasurable, and the most likely to believe that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. (Jews most often cite pleasure as a reason to have sex, and say that an unplanned pregnancy would be an embarrassment.) But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their “sexual début”—to use the festive term of social-science researchers—shortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier.

Another key difference in behavior, Regnerus reports, is that evangelical Protestant teen-agers are significantly less likely than other groups to use contraception. This could be because evangelicals are also among the most likely to believe that using contraception will send the message that they are looking for sex. It could also be because many evangelicals are steeped in the abstinence movement’s warnings that condoms won’t actually protect them from pregnancy or venereal disease. More provocatively, Regnerus found that only half of sexually active teen-agers who say that they seek guidance from God or the Scriptures when making a tough decision report using contraception every time. By contrast, sixty-nine per cent of sexually active youth who say that they most often follow the counsel of a parent or another trusted adult consistently use protection.

[...]

The movement is not the complete washout its critics portray it as: pledgers delay sex eighteen months longer than non-pledgers, and have fewer partners. Yet, according to the sociologists Peter Bearman, of Columbia University, and Hannah Brückner, of Yale, communities with high rates of pledging also have high rates of S.T.D.s. This could be because more teens pledge in communities where they perceive more danger from sex (in which case the pledge is doing some good); or it could be because fewer people in these communities use condoms when they break the pledge.

[...]

But Carbone and Cahn argue that the red-state model is clearly failing on its own terms—producing high rates of teen pregnancy, divorce, sexually transmitted disease, and other dysfunctional outcomes that social conservatives say they abhor.

So, let's bring this back to sex education and/or the No on 8 Campaign - or what I like to call, "No on H8." Cute, right? The proof is in the pudding - those who are most concerned with protecting the sanctity of marriage are breaking all of their own rules themselves. Therefore, preventing same-sex marriage or refusing safe sex education has nothing to do with protecting marriage or the children!!, but has everything to do with hating gays, perpetuating inequality and a long-standing tradition of being afraid to talk about sex.

Great now that this is out in the open when one of those Yes on 8'ers, let's call them, "H8'ers," shout from the sidelines, "you're destroying the sanctity of marriage!" You can either say, or simply keep quiet and know the truth, that, "Actually it's YOU and YOUR red states that have the highest divorce and teenage pregnancy rates, so sanctity THIS!" To which their only defending reply would be, "Yeah, but despite the facts, we still hate gays and the thought of comprehensive safe sex education."

Assimilation This!

My friend Jay Blotcher, a long time ACT UP activist and an all around smart and bad ass guy responds to those in the community who feel as though same-sex marriage is one step closer to assimilation:

Peep it.

Reciting Vows

My friend Jay Blotcher whom I plan to see The Cockettes with on Monday hipped me to the these three wowing queer perspectives on same sex marriage issue. Articles are from The Washington Post, New York Magazine, Alternet & Bilerico Project.

Activists: Something Lost In Fight for Gay Marriage
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 31, 2004; Page A03

NEW YORK -- Some days, as he watches gay men button their tuxes and lesbians slip into wedding gowns, gay rights activist William Dobbs feels like screaming.

"Some gay activist in California called for mass civil disobedience until we get the right to marry," Dobbs said, his voice growing louder. "God! What could be more dreary?"

Dobbs has marched on the front lines of the gay liberation movement for three decades, and has not a closeted bone in his body. He has been arrested and spat on. But he never imagined his battles for sexual liberation would shore up the most conservative of social institutions: marriage.

"Our movement has become about lusting for weddings and lavender picket fences," he said. "It's so embarrassing -- I feel like turning in my gay card."

The gay rights activists and theorists and feminists who critique the campaign from the left are the voices less often heard in the battle over gay marriage. These critics are not opposed to gay marriage -- none would deny the emotional tug of marriage for tens of thousands of gay couples. But they are mortified at the fate of a revolution pasteurized. They wonder what happened to championing sexual freedom and universal health care, and upending patriarchy?

As the gay revolution moves from leather bars and ACT UP sit-ins to the marriage registry at Bed Bath & Beyond, the middle-class makeover can be disorienting. Jim Eigo, a radical gay rights activist, framed the dilemma a few years back: "What's the use of being queer if you can't be different?"

James Wagner, 63, a bearded, retired insurance executive and longtime gay rights activist, rode the subway from his apartment in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan down to City Hall a week back to wave a placard at a rally for gay marriage. He watched couples yearning to exchange vows, and he was undeniably moved -- and deeply uneasy.

"I thought to myself: 'This is right. This should be their right to express their love as they like,' " Wagner said from his apartment, which he shares with his partner of 12 years. "But marriage is the way that government exerts social control. I'm uncomfortable supporting it. I'm interested in changing society, not assimilation."

Against such arguments, however, falls the weight of political reality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, and President Bush voiced support for a proposed constitutional amendment barring such marriages, the battle lines joined. As rank-and-file gay couples descended by the thousands on city halls in San Francisco; New Paltz, N.Y.; and Portland, Ore., to take their marriage vows and toss bouquets into the air, the leaders could trot into the chapel after them -- or get out of their way.

"There is the shock of finding ourselves arguing for something that the gay revolution was an attack on," said the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Tony Kushner, whose play "Homebody/Kabul" is being performed in the District. "But enfranchisement of citizens is an enormous part of what we struggled for when we took to the streets 35 years ago."

Richard Goldstein, an executive editor of the Village Voice, has a partner of 24 years. Like many of his out-of-the-closet-and-into-the-streets 1960s contemporaries, he harbors no deep desire to get hitched. But he insists that this should be his decision, not the government's.

"A lot of gay people grew up wanting middle-class lives, including marriage and children," Goldstein said. "They had to make a painful choice to acknowledge being gay and letting go all those hopes and desires. Now they realize they can have it all and that's very moving to watch."

The gay liberation movement came of age in the late 1960s as gay men and lesbians protested police brutality and the raids on their bars and public baths. Its ethos of sexual freedom and experimentation transformed a culture. The revolution's second act came in the 1980s, when AIDS descended. Militants formed ACT UP and their demands for more research and affordable medications led to support of universal health care and expanded legal rights.

But as doors opened, gays with more conservative cultural politics and desires stepped through. This is an old radical narrative. Left-wing labor organizers in the 1930s watched three decades later as unionized workers marched in support of the Vietnam War. Aging black liberationists watch the ascension of such conservatives as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"It's the tension between the liberationists and the assimilationists," said Alisa Solomon, a professor at New York's Baruch College and writer for the Village Voice. "Our side made it possible for more conservative gays to come out of the closet, and when they did they brought a more conservative politics and culture to our movement."

Solomon, like many gay rights activists, argues for redefining all marriages -- homosexual, heterosexual -- as civil unions. This would provide the legal protections that come with marriage, from health care to taxes to adoption, without the emotional and cultural freight. "The queer marriage movement needs a divestment campaign," Solomon wrote in the Village Voice. "The only way we will win is if the state's authority to pronounce is stripped from the ministers, rabbis, imams and priests."

But other ACT UP veterans argue for seizing the day. Jay Blotcher, who once served as the group's spokesman, drove from his Upstate New York home to New Paltz to marry his partner. He says gay rights activists should stop worrying and take credit for forcing the cultural opening that led to gay marriage.

"We'll breathe new life into marriage -- God knows it needs rejuvenation," he said. "We're here for the queer makeover."

For now, however, the gay establishment has taken a Hallmark Cards approach to the marriage campaign, framing it in middle-class terms. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's "Freedom to Marry" guide advises that gays are "very much like everyone else. They grow up, fall in love, form families . . . they mow their laws, shop for groceries."

Dobbs said he reads this stuff and thinks: What a yawn.

He leafed through the photos of the gay marriages these past weeks. There wasn't a nose-pierced, pink-haired, breast-tattooed transgressive transgender queen to be seen. He has a nightmare vision of what the future holds.

"We're going to just put the photo of our spouse on our desk at the law firm and represent some Fortune 500 corporation," Dobbs said. "We're not going to threaten to rearrange your finances or change your world in any way. That's not my gay movement."

California Bliss

Why an L.A. same-sex marriage will matter in New York.
By Bob Morris

The day we tied the knot, three years ago, City Hall was crowded with brides and grooms waiting their turn in the municipal chapel. But we, two grooms, were there for a domestic partnership, and our only officiant was the brusque woman who took our money. I called us “as married as gays can be in New York,” and at the time, it was true. Later, I recount our vague nuptials for a friend. “So basically,” she replied, “it’s like getting a parking permit.” Well, yes. But now things are looking better here—thanks to the California Supreme Court.

Although New York’s top court, the Court of Appeals, ruled against same-sex marriages in 2006, three months ago, an appellate court in western New York said that New York State must respect valid marriages performed elsewhere. On May 6, the Court of Appeals let that ruling stand, meaning current law says that while I can’t get married in New York, if I get married someplace else, it’s binding here. Canada, Spain, Belgium, and Holland will all let me get married, except that other than Canada, those countries require residency for a marriage to be valid. And Massachusetts quickly tightened its 2004 welcome policy, dredging up an old law stating that if you can’t get married legally in your state, you can’t do it in theirs. It’s a great little trick: New York will honor my Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, or Bostonian wedding, but Spain, Belgium, Holland, and Boston will only let me be legally married if I live there, not in New York. But California has no residency requirement. I can live here, get married there, and still have it count when I land at JFK.

This will mean more travel for Jay Blotcher. He and his partner, Brook Garrett, got a domestic partnership at City Hall in 2000. Then they were civilly united on a hillside in Vermont during the foliage season that year—a step up from the grotty City Hall registration but carrying no weight on this side of Lake Champlain. Their last wedding was in New Paltz, where their participation in Mayor Jason West’s mass-marriage event of 2004 got them on CNN but no more formally wed. “It’s a marriage marathon,” says Blotcher. “And California is next.” Blotcher and Garrett are planning a trip to Santa Monica for sometime after June 14, when the California ruling takes effect.

But Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, is still going to wait for a legal New York wedding, which he thinks could happen within a year. “It’s terrific they’re doing it in California,” Van Capelle says. “But I love this state so much, I think it owes me a marriage license.”

I’m with him. And a parking permit would be nice, too.

Why One Queer Person Is Not Celebrating California's Historic Gay Marriage Decision
By Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, AlterNet
Posted on May 28, 2008, Printed on May 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/86574/

Editor's Note: To read a different take on the California Supreme Court decision, read Greta Christina's story, Why I Fought for the Right to Say 'I Do'.

Though I am a queer person living in San Francisco, I will not be celebrating the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on same-sex marriage. Nor will I join those who say, "I would never choose to get married, but I think everyone should have the right." Sorry, honey -- marriage is depressing, period. That means gay marriage, too. And here's why.

Gay marriage does nothing to address fundamental problems of inequality. What is needed is universal access to basic necessities like housing, health care, food, and the benefits now obtained through citizenship (like the right to stay in this country). Legalized gay marriage means only that certain people in a specific type of long-term, monogamous relationship sanctioned by a state contract might be able to access benefits. While marriage could confer inclusion under a spouse's health-care policy, it does nothing to provide such a policy. Marriage might ensure hospital visitation rights, but not for anyone without a spouse. Marriage may allow for inheritance rights between spouses, but what if there is nothing to inherit?

For a long time, queers have married straight friends for citizenship or health care, but this has never been enshrined as "progress." The majority of queers -- single or coupled (but not desiring marriage), monogamous or polyamorous, jobless or marginally employed -- would remain excluded from the much-touted benefits of legalized gay marriage.

And let's not forget the history of marriage as a legal method for keeping property within specific dynasties (property that originally included women and slaves). In fact, marriage still exists as a central venue for spousal and child abuse -- there's a reason divorce is so popular, and suicide attempts among queer teens so prevalent. If social change is on the agenda, then the privileges associated with marriage need to be challenged, not embraced.

In fact, the push for gay marriage has shifted advocacy away from essential services like HIV education, AIDS health care, drug treatment, domestic violence prevention, and homeless care -- all crucial needs for far more queers than marriage could ever be. And this pattern will undoubtedly continue, as millions of dollars will be spent fighting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment proposed for the November ballot, at a time when social services are being scrapped across the country, and especially in California.

The spectacle around gay marriage draws attention away from critical issues -- like ending U.S. wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, stopping massive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids across the country, and challenging the never-ending assault on anyone living outside of conventional norms.

While many straight people are reaping the benefits of gay liberation and discovering new ways of loving, lusting for and caring for one another, the gay marriage movement is busy fighting for a 1950s model of white-picket fence "we're just like you" normalcy. And that's no reason to celebrate.

Editor's Note: For an opposing viewpoint, check out Greta Christina's article "Why I Fought for the Right to Say 'I Do'".

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore is most recently the editor of an expanded second edition of That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation (Soft Skull Press)

2 Down, 48 to Go

California just lifted the ban on gay marriage!

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that paves the way for allowing same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Congratulations California. This is fantastic!

If you're a Californian couple wanting to get married. Go right on ahead! Spread the love and equality! This is my 300th post and I am overjoyed I get to celebrate it with this post!

From Tony Kushner's Angels in America:
"The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come."

Since It's Such a Hot Topic...

Same-Sex marriage is all over the news lately and it always reminds me of this piece of media made by my wildly talented and creative friend, David Daigle, for the 2004 GLAAD Media Awards. Since it was made in 2004 some of the shows are dated but the issues presented are as valid and relevant today as they were then.

I've seen this piece of media a gazillion times and every time, no joke, it always brings a tear to my eye.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Ha!
How about a ban on this?! From TV's reality/lie Detector game show, "Moment of Truth."

Wedding

Photo courtesy of Joe.My.God via Dr. Jeff

Awwww!
Joe Birdsong, owner of Rapture Cafe, promised the readers and attendees of last night's Reading for Filth that there would be a huge surprise at the end of the evening. And man did he deliver!

Last night I witnessed my first gay/trans wedding and it was a wonderful thing to suddenly be a part of. This wasn't some kind of ceremony, or unionization or "ring giving" this was a full-on wedding. And you know what, conservatives? The world didn't come to an end. Heterosexuals did not feel like their marriage carried less "sanctity" and everyone gay/straight/trans/black/white applauded.

It's just love, people. Simple love.
Congratulations and best wishes to the happiest and healthiest!

Back Off Haters

It really is as simple and as harmless as what you see before your eyes:

Yes, a real family.

Same-sex Marriage: Be Careful What You Wish For

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine last night and we got to talking about same-sex marriage. First and foremost I am a huge supporter of same-sex Marriage. But what does this mean? Does it mean I support same-sex marriage because it stands for equality? Yes. Does it mean I support same-sex marriage because two consenting adults have the right to do what they want? Yes. Does it mean I support same-sex marriage because it validates the next progression of love and understanding? Yes. Does it mean I support same-sex marriage because it injects moralistic norms within the gay community. NO!

I only support same-sex marriage as an additional option for the lifestyles of gay men and women. There is a fear I have pertaining to my support for same-sex marriage that, if and when we ever get it passed on a national level same-sex marriage may create an "us vs. them" complex amongst members of the gay community. That is to say that those who get married or find relationships are "right" and those who choose to stay single, exercise sexual freedom and/or have multiple sexual partners are "wrong." Same-Sex marriage should only be used as an additional aspect in our freedom to choose and should not be mistaken for the future shaping of gay life. The worst thing that could possibly happen would be for same-sex marriage to pass, people pair off, and those who remain single or even choose to not get married suddenly get served with a backlash of judgment and criticism for not doing what the new cultural moralistic norm demands of them. The statement should be: If you choose to get married, fine. If you choose to not get married, fine. There is no right and wrong regarding gay marriage; it is only an additional option to the lifestyles we already lead. Let's fight for same-sex marriage because it stands alongside equality and our freedom to choose, not because it's the new standard for who we should be and how we should act.