Ah Texas - You gotta love it.

Lubbock lingerie store clerk may have to register as a sex offender.

88 Percent

That's the number of foster children adopted by gay couples in San Francisco since last July. This week, as San Fran prepares a huge pro-gay adoption blitz (complete with billboards all over the city), apparently the San Francisco Chronicle likes to quote leaders of hate groups, as recognized by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The offending article was printed yesterday morning, and the offending paragraph goes like this:

The campaign, which will include a billboard in the Castro featuring two dads with their teen daughter, is perhaps the first of its kind and sure to be controversial. It comes just two weeks after the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family began its drive to recruit more Christians as adoptive parents, partly -- the group said -- to keep foster children out of homosexual hands.

Focus on the Family's objection to same-sex parents is grounded in interpretation of biblical scripture and research by Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute in Colorado. Cameron says gays and lesbians are unfit parents, are more likely to molest children of their same sex, switch partners frequently, have shorter life expectancies and cause their children embarrassment and social difficulties.

"Any child that can be adopted into a married-mother-and-father family, that's the gold standard," Cameron said. "An orphanage would be the second choice, and then a single woman."

Well, if all that isn't offensive enough, reporter Ilene Lelchuck fails to mention that Paul Cameron, according toAmericablog: "told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.

He was kicked out of the American Psychological Association, and was publicly rebuked by the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. And he has been called the leader of a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, America's number one civil rights organization for tracking the klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The Southern Poverty Law Center went so far as to say that "Cameron's 'science' echoes Nazi Germany." And the SPLC tracks actual Nazis, so they have the right to make the comparison.

This is the "expert" quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle. And to make matters worse, not only did the Chronicle quote a known hate group as an expert on civil rights, but they didn't even identify who Cameron really is. Nope. They don't tell their readers anything at all about Cameron, simply that he's an expert on gays molesting children. Do you think it's relevant that the man's "science" has been debunked? Not according to the "journalists" at the Chronicle.

I suspect Ms. Lelchuck will most likely be issuing an apology in the next day or two. This is just incredibly sloppy, lazy reporting. Why quote the man in the first place, unless that's your agenda?

More Fartwell (sorry!) and the color purple.

In Salon today, they have a satirical editorial by Tinky, the purple TeleTubby remarking on Fartwell's death. One thing Fartwell attributed to Tinky's gayness in that now infamous editorial is that the color purple represents the color of gay pride.

Really? I thought pride was a rainbow, made up of all the primary colors so that we could just co-opt them all along with molesting children that we somehow inexplicably didn't abort while we were smoking crack and having orgies.

Anyhow, that brings me to my next point, which I meant to blog about awhile back, about an interesting trend I've noticed lately at the retail establishment where I toil away my hours. I've been working at the customer service desk a lot lately, and we have a little service where we provide balloons to children. We provide purple and green balloons, emblazoned with our logo. Purple and green, those are the only colors.

What I've been seeing a lot of is little boys wanting purple balloons, and their parents refusing and only letting them have green ones. And when I say I've seen a lot of this, I don't mean once or twice. I mean, I see it at least once every shift or two. I see it enough that I've noticed it.

Usually the little boys cry, or pout, or refuse the green balloon, because they want the purple one, but the parents don't budge. I even saw one little boy completely freak out and sob hysterically because he wanted purple and his father would only let him have green. The father even smiled a bit as he tied the green balloon to the cart and pushed it away, the boy sobbing inside. Whether he was smiling because he was embarassed, or because he was taking delight in breaking the boy's spirit, I'm not sure. But either way, he was not having the purple balloon.

It's very strange. One of my managers was standing up there talking to me when we both witnessed this father and his son, and the manager rolled his eyes and said, "He probably thinks the purple balloon will make him gay."

It's very weird. I always thought purple was a traditionally "masculine" color, symbolizing royalty and strength. When did it become "gay?" I'm so out of touch.

Jumping Ship

Americablog has a really nice and succinct roundup of Republican candidate responses to Fartwell's death.

If any one of these men gets elected President in 2008, I'm done. Seriously, you think I'm kidding? Done. Vancouver was just ranked the Most Livable City in the World by whoever does those kinds of rankings. Toronto is supposed to be nice. Cold, but nice.

I guess I'm still just very shockable. God, how long is it going to be before these prehistoric troglodytes die off? If they all went today it wouldn't be soon enough.

Well, at least we got one down. My only regret is that he died so quickly. It should have been long, protracted, painful, and terrifying. But I'll take what I can get.

See, I knew I couldn't be nice for long.

Falwell

You have no idea how difficult it is for me right now not to say something dreadful, or list all the abominable things he's done and said in the name of Christianity. But since I'm sure that if the God he believes in does exist, he's rotting in hell right now, so far be it from me to rub salt on the man's wounds.

Good God, it's like a coalition of monkeys. But non-evolved monkeys.

A big part of me hopes that they're all just joking, that this is a big leg-pull of the American people. Or maybe they're pulling their own legs. God help us if even one of these wackos gets within a foot of the White House next year. I have to say, though, that the American people have been suffering so much under this kind of right-wing, dare I say idiotic, thinking for the past 7 years, and they've seen what it yields. I'm fairly certain most of them have had enough.

What if Roe v. Wade was repealed? I think Guiliani's answer is probably by far the worst, most incoherent, and most insincere. That man is a fucking moron.

And evolution? I'm sorry they asked. I like how McCain hesitates before he answers, as if he's thinking about what the correct answer should be.

The last time I saw so many phonies was when I was shopping in the Fashion District in L.A.

The rent's high, and the war's on, and it's last call; even your friends look worried.

Just when you think conservatives (Republicans, ahem) can't go any lower...they do!

First, Rush Limbaugh claims the Virginia Tech killer was clearly a liberal, with his head full of liberal, anti-rich propaganda. Never mind that he was actually a paranoid schizophrenic, but that's all semantics. Rush by far takes the cake for stooping to the lowest low possible to spin a horrific, mind-numbing tragedy for political gain. I mean, seriously, the guy is a sociopath! Rush, that is. It completely boggles the mind. Besides, I thought all liberals were the rich and elite.

Secondly, Guiliani yesterday said that if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, we can start expecting a lot more attacks equal to, or that rival, 9/11. Is anybody buying this anymore? Really? Anyone?

Third, in an interview released today, Laura Bush claimed that no one suffers over the Iraq war more than she and the President do. There's nothing to even say in response to that. The really sad part of it is, I think she really believes it. Except, well, it's weird that they would be suffering so much over one little bombing a day! It's just one bomb.

And lastly, on a somewhat more entertaining note, I want to direct anyone that hasn't yet seen it to my friend Dylan's little call and response to the always charming Dinesh D'Souza.

It's been a great week in the good ole U S of A, folks. Just the kind of week that makes you wonder what you're still doing here.

On the plus side, I only have 2 days of school left this semester.

Well, we made it onto CNN this morning, but not for anything good.

Some of you may have heard that shortly after 8 am today the Main Building at St. Edwards was evacuated (where I happened to have just arrived for class, actually on time for once) due to a vague bomb threat. Soon thereafter, the rest of campus was evacuated and locked down temporarily, while everyone was corralled to the soccer fields, away from buildings, and where we could all be in the open. Classes were cancelled for the whole day for campus to be searched and secured. I'm sure it was nothing, and I just saw it as an opportunity to go home at 9:30 on a day I normally don't get home until almost 1.

I've written before about how much I love my counseling professor (in fact, more than once), but today she just really drove it home. This afternoon she sent out this email to all of her students:

Hi, gang ..

It occurred to me, as I was standing outside near the soccer field this
morning, that some of you might prefer not to be on campus today or
tonight. There are lots of reasons for feeling this way, but the one that
comes to mind right away is simply not feeling safe. After the shooting
at Virginia Tech yesterday and the bomb threat this morning, some of you
may be feeling that things seem a bit out of control.

If that's the case for you and you'd rather spend the night somewhere else
tonight, please know that you're invited to my house. I have some extra
mattresses and lots of floor space. Bring your favorite DVD and pillow
and come on out. We'll pop some popcorn and watch movies, very informal.
I'll include directions at the end of this email. Since I have a supper
engagement, I'll leave a house key under the back doormat. Make yourself
at home. I'll be home around 7:30. Make yourself at home if you get
there before I get back.

I understand that most of you may be doing fine. But I wanted you to have
an option if you're feeling unsafe. Let me know if you think you'll be
coming out.

Hang in there,

Helen J.

She then included very specific directions to her house.

God! How sweet is she? I almost want to go just to go hang out with her.

I'm sort of loath to even draw attention to it, because I think the less attention they get, the better, but I couldn't peel my eyes away.

I've posted the first part of a 7-part BBC documentary on the Phelps (the crazy God Hates Fags family) called The Most Hated Family in America. So far I've only watched the first episode (each one is about 8 minutes) but I'm sure I'll watch them all in time. Or maybe I'll get bored.

Honestly, these people are so nuts, and everybody hates them so much, that they don't get me riled up like people do who actually have any power or influence. If anything, the Phelps probably turn more people sympathetic to the gays than create any more hatred. I just wish people wouldn't engage with them, or have them on talk shows. (Although I guess that makes me a bit of a hypocrite posting this video. Oh well.)

And sadly, if nothing else, I hate them because in the clip they inspire Sean Hannity to actually say something I agree with. And that turns my stomach.

In case anyone had any doubt that the Republicans have always hated the gays.

This guy has started posting pictures on his blog from the archives of ACT UP, commemorating their 20th anniversary this year.

He only has 2 pictures up at the moment, but I like this one a lot, and think it speaks volumes. It's a group of college Republicans staging a counter-protest against ACT UP in 1988, when the AIDS crisis was reaching its cresecendo. In fact, I think the image is almost chilling.

Behaviorism & Genetics

Last night Dylan and I got into an initial discussion about the president of the Southern Baptist Association's recent article about the science world's possible finding of a genetic basis for homosexuality, and what that could mean. The Baptist douchebag of course looks at this hopefully (in a bizarre turn of events in their constant harping about it being a choice), because to him, a genetic base could mean a "cure." Which is just further proof that the specter of gay is far more frightening and important to the far-right than their own professed beliefs that all babies, born or unborn, are God's creations and not to be "tinkered" with. In other words, they don't believe in abortion for any reason, or that life should be toyed with by science for any reason, unless that reason is that you know you'll give birth to a gay baby, in which case it's perfectly all right for science to butt in and fix it. The first people that would propose such a solution are probably the first people that would also vote against stem cell research. It's completely confounding. It doesn't even make me angry, it's so confusing.

Anyway, mine and Dylan's discussion led into a further, and slightly more emotional, talk about the general ethics of messing with unborn life in the first place. If he and I were both to say that it would be morally reprehensible to abort a baby just because you knew it would be gay, what about handicapped babies, or babies that you know will be born with severe disabilities or brain damage? I mean, where do you draw the line? If it's okay for one couple to abort a child they know will be retarded, for instance, why is it worse for a couple to maybe not even abort a gay baby, but just take out the "gay gene" and then have a "straight" baby? I don't really have answers to any of those questions, and if I can stand back in non-judgement against people who might abort their child because it's brain-damaged (and even go one step further to say that I would do that too, I know without a doubt), then I also have to stand back in non-judgement against a couple who, in 10 years, might choose to abort a gay fetus. But is there a difference? Should we only take into consideration how that baby might affect the adult's lives? Do you draw the line at behavioral versus physical attributes (retarded versus future sex life)? Dylan brought up some gay friends of his that he said have told him that if they could somehow turn a switch to make themselves straight that they would do it. I know where they're coming from, because I used to say that too, until I realized it was an attitude rooted in internalized homophobia, self-hatred and shame. It makes me sad because it condones an almost fascistic point-of-view that everyone should be the same, and fails to just accept that you are who you are, and you're created the way you are, and that's just the way it is, whether you believe you were created that way by evolutionary accident or by some kind of god (or a combination of the two). Autistic people have hard lives too, but they just are who they are, and that's all they know, and that's what makes them who they are. I can't imagine being a heterosexual, and I can defiantly say that if heterosexuality were offered to me in a pill, I would never take it. I wouldn't even know how to function as a straight man, and being gay has shaped so much about who I am, for better or for worse, that getting rid of that part of me would be like committing suicide. I would essentially cease to exist and someone else would be walking around looking just like me, but not being me.

But the discussion also got me to thinking about the founder of behaviorism we've been studying in my psychological history class, John B. Watson. It feels to me like a very bitter school of thought, mainly because it completely shuns emotions and introspection in favor of purely observable behaviors and reactions being all that matters with humans. In fact, it goes further to say that we're basically indistinguishable from animals, in that we humans are nothing but a collection of condititioned responses and behaviors. Watson even went so far as to suggest that humans lacked instincts and that when we're born, we're nothing but amorphous, empty shells containing nothing.

Watson was known for being extremely stoic and unemotional, and found emotions to be useless and trivial. He strove for a society based purely on scientifically shaped beliefs and behaviors, and advocated an end to all religion, myths, traditions, and convention. This all came about starting around 1913 or so, and was extremely popular. (As an aside, in his later career, Watson worked in advertising, and figured out much of what we now consider to be psychological responses to advertising, i.e., what makes things sell.)

Watson claimed that he could take 12 newborn babies, and condition them in such a way that by the time they were teenagers, he could have them completely molded into whatever he wanted, such as a star athlete, an expert violinist, a thief, an artist, a lawyer, and so forth, regardless of the child's natural abilities, talents or proclivities. Watson didn't believe in such things.

In one famous experiment, he conditioned a toddler to be terrified of bunny rabbits by loudly banging on a pipe with a hammer behind the baby's head every time he played with a cute little bunny that Watson provided for him. It worked like a charm, and not only did the child become terrified of fuzzy bunnies, he became terrified of anything even remotely resembling a bunny, like a fuzzy scarf, a fur coat, or even pictures of Santa Claus. Of course that experiment would never fly today because it's unethical and it's abuse, but the point is, at one point, people thought this was okay.

I'm not sure that people will ever think that genetically tinkering with unborn fetuses is okay, aside, inexplicably, from right-wing hatemongers. Just because the technology is there to do something doesn't mean that a) it will be available, or that b) any scientist or doctor would be willing to use it for dubious purposes (although if enough money were involved, I have no doubt that doctors and scientists could be found who would be willing to do it). People were intially excited about Watson's proposals to shape people into anything, but eventually the public turned on it, and recognized the emptiness and immorality of such a proposal (not including that Watson was clearly wrong, and probably never could have followed through on his bold claims). It's an interesting proposal in purely theoretical terms, but I can't imagine anyone, religious or not, wanting to live in such a sterile and mediated society.

Well, that basketball player IS pretty hot....

The Daily Show takes on gay conversion therapy.

"A Letter to America's Heterosexuals"

Today in the L.A. Times there is an op-ed piece of sorts by the gay activist and writer Larry Kramer. Despite changing the title from the subject above to "Why Do Straights Hate Gays," and describing him as an "aging 72-year-old gay man," (I mean, could they make it sound any more dismissive?), it's worth a read.

There is not much nuance to the letter, and reads a bit like an undisciplined, whiny temper tantrum, and I was almost embarassed to read it. It's so easy to forget that a man who is now 72, though, grew up in such an incredibly different environment than I did, and that I take so much for granted. I told someone at work the other day that I would never march in a gay pride parade as long as I lived because I wasn't proud to be gay. Which is not to say I'm ashamed of being gay, but that I don't think people should be proud to be gay any more than straight people should be proud to be straight. I realize this grossly misses the point, but I ended my conversation with this person by saying, "I'm proud, though, that all those people marched a generation ago so I don't have to." God, if I could go back and slap the shit out of myself only a week ago. What a smug, ungrateful attitude. Which is also dangerously insouciant. Rights are never a given (even here, where so many people seem to think they are), and even if you have them today, you could lose them tomorrow.

In the piece, Kramer also makes a rallying cry to boycott voting for any politicians, because "there is not a one...that wouldn't sell gays down the river." I'm not sure I completely agree with that, but he makes a good point. After all the flap about General Pace's comments last week about gays being immoral, both Hillary and Obama were disgracefully slow to respond, and Obama even outright ignored the question in favor of signing autographs and brushing off the reporter by hopping in a limo. Though he didn't outright say it, his attitude conveyed a sense of disinterest and apathy in this subject. Finally, several days later, through a rep, he issued a statement along the lines of "I don't think gay people are immoral."

Gee thanks.

And of course John McCain is a complete joke, and the fact that politicians even pay remote lip service to right-wing evangelicals in this country is absolutely terrifying. These contemporary fascists should be shunned, ignored, denounced, and maligned. The fact that they even have an iota of a say in politics and legislation in this country (which was formed on the basis of escaping religious persecution) is stomach-turning.

Anyway, I've decided to past Kramer's letter here. It's worth a read.

Kramer

Why do straights hate gays?
An aging 72-year-old gay man isn't hopeful about the future.
By Larry Kramer, LARRY KRAMER is the founder of the protest group ACT UP and the author of "The Tragedy of Today's Gays."
March 20, 2007

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood? Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this? My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you. Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War. Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

And there's no sign that this situation will change anytime soon. President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world. If someone beats you up because of who you are — your race or ethnic origin — that is considered a hate crime. But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it. Punishable means prison. Punishable means death. The U.S. government refused our requests that it protest after gay teenagers were hanged in Iran, but it protests many other foreign cruelties. Who cares if a faggot dies? Parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. are joining with the Nigerian archbishop, who believes gays should be put in prison. Episcopalians! Whoever thought we'd have to worry about Episcopalians?

Well, whoever thought we'd have to worry about Florida? A young gay man was just killed in Florida because of his sexual orientation. I get reports of gays slain in our country every week. Few of them make news. Fewer are prosecuted. Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls? This is not free speech. This is another version of hate. It is all one world of gay-hate. It always was.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated. Don't those of you straights who claim not to hate us have a responsibility to denounce the hate? Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men" or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage? Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.

Not that John McCain held any credibility with me to begin with, but this is really too much....

From the NYT, McCain stumbles on HIV prevention.

The way conservatives have this almost inherent ability to deny reality still shocks me sometimes. I know I should be used to it by now. Staggering.

A transcript of the encounter follows. (Weaver is John Weaver, his senior adviser, and Brian is Mr. Jones, his press secretary):

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

This went on for a few more moments until a reporter from the Chicago Tribune broke in and asked Mr. McCain about the weight of a pig that he saw at the Iowa State Fair last year.

Sometimes I don't, actually, regret once saying that America deserves whatever it gets.

And, you know, you really can't blame the conservatives for being so scared and freaked out. America is, by definition, a liberal and progressive country, that, I believe in my heart of hearts, ultimately does the right thing, even if it might take decades.

- Arkansas votes today to keep 800 foster children homeless. Because it's what's best for them.

- Dan Savage rips Garrison Keillor a new one after the self-appointed leftist argues that gay men are to effiminate to raise children. And shame on Salon for running it.

- And lastly, some professor at UNC makes an open call for the execution of homosexuals. And yet, somehow he's allowed to keep his job. Because the title "How to Bomb a Tennessee Blues Joint to Kill a Whole Bunch of Those Self-Righteous Niggers" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

And conservatives think that America's university system is all run by pinko commie lefties. Silly fucking morons.

There are gay couples in Arkansas?!?!?

Apparently, legislation in Arkansas to ban gay foster parenting and adoption is well underway. After a 75% vote in favor of banning gay marriage in 2004, some want to take their hatred a step further.

No state law bans private adoptions regardless of sexual orientation. Before Fox's ruling, prospective parents had to meet the same requirements as prospective foster parents -- no gays allowed -- to adopt through the state program. Since Fox's ruling, the state no longer inquires about a prospective parent's sexual orientation.

On Monday, Womack noted the high court's focus on the review board's lack of authority in imposing the gay foster parent ban and said his bill, if it becomes law, would withstand a court challenge.

"The court was clear that the state's responsibility is to protect the best interest of a child," Womack told the committee. "That's what I'm trying to do here."

...

Gov. Mike Beebe, who said during his successful gubernatorial campaign last year he would support reinstating the gay foster parent ban, said Monday he was still reviewing Womack's bill.

"Some of this is going into a different area. What we talked about during the campaign was foster care and the fragile nature of those children," Beebe told The Associated Press.

Sometimes it's true that you can never go home again.

Faggot

So, yeah, I have nothing to say about Ann Coulter, but I did want to point readers to a pretty great response by Andrew Sullivan to her appearance on Hannity & Colmes last night.

And yesterday I had a thought. (I know, it's crazy.) What if Ann Coulter is actually a totally left-leaning crazy liberal, and this whole screaming banshee act she has going on is just that: an act? What if she's intentionally, by playing a role and being a martyr, actively (in cognito) simply demonstrating how bigoted, racist, homophobic, hateful, and dumb the far right and most Republicans are? Now that even Republicans are starting to denounce her for making them look bad (not that they need any of her help!), her plan would seem to be starting to work.

What if she's really a hero?



UPDATE: I just read this, further down the scroll on Sullivan's site, from some other dude:

The political equivalent of Britney Spears shaving the hair off her head, Ann Coulter made headlines at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) by calling Democrat John Edwards a faggot. Wearing a leather dress and a Christian cross around her neck, Coulter must be a liberal infiltrator whose purpose is to give conservatism a bad name.

I really felt sorry for those Republican presidential candidates who attended CPAC and were forced by the liberal media to respond to Coulter's remarks. It's guilt-by-association, but Coulter had to know that making such a remark would put those candidates in an uncomfortable, even embarrassing, position. As a former staffer and contributing editor of Human Events, I can't understand why this conservative weekly publication continues to feature her on the masthead as a "legal affairs correspondent" and puts her columns on page one. Jed Babbin, the new editor, must be sick to his stomach. Coulter's columns are anything but legal analysis.

Infiltrator: that's a good word I should have used.

Gabies

The new issue of Texas Monthly has a really interesting article about the current state of gay parenting in Texas. Surprisingly, San Antonio has the highest percentage of children living with gay parents of any other U.S. city, and according to a 2000 census poll by the Urban Institute, gay couples in Texas are more likely to adopt children than in any other state in the country. Nationally, about 1 in 4 gay couples has children, but in Texas it's closer to 1 in 3 couples.

The article focuses primarily on the Texas State Legislator's attempts to deny parenting status, and the ability to be foster parents, to gay couples throughout the past decade, with most efforts led by two Republican legislators, Warren Chisum and Robert Talton. In 1999, and again in 2003, legislation was introduced that would have forced the removal of children from any "gay" homes, and banned all future placement in any gay households. Another bill filed in 2003 would have outright legally banned gay adoptions.

As of now, gay adoption isn't illegal in Texas. Generally, when a gay couple has children, it's a child left over from a previous marriage or relationship, and often the new partner adopts the kid. In both straight and gay adoptions, this is called "second-parent" adoption, and is incredibly common, as you can imagine, among straight people. In Texas, as in other states, it's not illegal for gays to engage in second-parent adoption, but not exactly condoned, either. In cases where a gay couple adopts a child that doesn't biologically belong to either of them, or when a gay couple applies to be foster parents, the home is treated as single-parent household with "other adults present," and only one partner is principally dealt with by the CPS (Child Protective Services).

What makes all of this so sad, as is the case with gay marriage, are the potential legal quagmires and emotional devastation. If a same-sex couple splits up, whoever the "principal" guardian is can legally bar the other partner from ever having any contact with the child whatsoever, and the barred partner has absolutely no legal recourse. They may be prevented from visiting children in the hospital or adding a child to an employer's medical plan. If the birth or adoptive parent should die, the remaining parent again has absolutely no legal obligations or privileges to the kid. The child's biological relatives, or even a sperm donor that may have never met the child, have more legal right than a parent who might have raised the kid from birth. There are more children supported by Social Security payments in America from a deceased parent than are on welfare, but again, a non-custodial gay parent cannot (absent a legal relationship) bequeath these payments to their children, even if the parent has paid into Social Security for decades. Surviving children are also subject to significantly higher taxes on inherited property than are children of heterosexual parents who both have legal rights to the child.

Gay parenting in Texas became a huge issue in 1997, when CPS employee Rebecca Bledsoe removed a foster child from a family in Dallas for the sole reason that the parents were both lesbians. She was admonished and demoted by CPS, so she sued. Her lawsuit held little weight, but it opened the doors for all kinds of legislative action against gay foster parenting and adoption (in addition to marriage), all of which were supported by then governor George W. Bush.

In one side-note, in a 2006 television interview, Tennessee legislator Debra Maggart claimed that gay men adopted children for the sole purpose of having unfettered access to children they can molest. This tells you the kind of mentality we're fighting here.

In 2005, Robert Talton once again tried to ban gay foster parenting, and it was defeated only at the last minute, partly through the work of openly gay Austin legislator Glen Maxey. Of the roughly 19,000 children in foster care in Texas, between 2,000 and 3,000 are presumed to be in gay households. The immediate cost of finding new placement for them would have cost the state (taxpayers) over $8 million, and provide a huge setback for CPS, which is already scrambling to find enough suitable homes for all the foser kids.

After the 2005 defeat, to his credit, Chisum agreed to leave the gays alone. "Some of them do a fabulous job of stepping in when no one else will," he said at the time. Talton, the magazine notes, remains unconvinced and is expected to bring up the issue in session once again in 2007. Gay families all over Texas are holding their collective breath.

Not Ready to Make Nice

If anyone's interested in donating money to LYRIC, a San Francisco-based housing retreat for gay and lesbian teenagers, you can do so here, in the Ted Haggard Betting Pool.

All you have to do is wager a guess on the what the date will be when he "falls off the wagon" and gets caught with his mouth wrapped around some random guy's dick at an interstate rest stop, and if you're closest to the correct date, you win!

Obviously, my sympathy for the man has greatly diminished. My hopes that he would use this opportunity to become a real person have not reached fruition. Instead, he's going to go on preaching his hate and ignorance and taking part in ruining more people's lives. Fuck him.

The already infamous Snickers ad

I had no idea this crazy commercial existed until just now (it only aired last night during the Super Bowl), but the gay bloggers are already in a tizzy about it, criticizing Mars, Inc., calling for boycotts, and screaming that they're promoting violence against gay people.

Americablog has a really great and much more in-depth reaction to the commercial. Links to Snickers' site seem to have the commercial removed already, including the players' reactions to the "kiss." Unless someone more web-saavy than I am can figure it all out.

While I see their points, especially about showing the NFL players recoiling in disgust, I think maybe they're missing the point. Could it be possible that the Snickers company is making fun of homophobes? Albeit the commercial is aggressively unfunny, uninspired, and not at all clever, I don't really think it's homophobic, exactly. Just sort of...gross. And dumb. I will admit, however, that the association between homosexuality and being unmanly is a particularly insidious one, and one that I, personally, struggled with for many, many years. It's an association that still stings probably more than any of the other ones, and is the cause for, I'm sure, the majority of the overcompensation of most closet cases, and even a lot of "out" homosexuals who harbor a large degree of internalized homophobia, whether they're conscious of it or not.

Anyway, I can't imagine in my wildest dreams (nightmares?) that Mars, Inc. would make a commercial like this and not expect (or perhaps be deliberately courting) controversy. I'm glad people are raising a stink about it, but I do think it's slightly unwarranted. Well, at least in regards to the commercial itself. Maybe not to the publicity on their web site.

Sigh.

Ultimately, though, this is all so boring. Can we as a society please just move on? Exploiting any kind of minority, or people's fears of those minorities, is so unoriginal and cynical. For that reason alone, Mars should have to issue an apology, in my opinion.