General: December 2007 Archives

Sen. Larry Craig, the toe-tapping Idaho Republican with the wide stance who got himself in big legal and political trouble in that Minneapolis airport men’s room incident last June, is now going toe-to-toe with his former friend, Mitt Romney.

Craig was the Romney campaign’s chief Senate liaison until word exploded in late August that Craig had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a police bathroom sex-sting operation. Romney immediately called his supporter’s behavior “disgraceful,” and Craig left the campaign.

In a taped interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer to be broadcast later this week, Craig says, “He not only threw me under his campaign bus. He backed up and ran over me again.” (source)

What in the world did Larry Craig expect from Romney? Romney is an opportunist. When he was Governor of Massachusetts, he was all for some fairness for gay people. Then, when he basically went AWOL from his job to travel around the country, he changed his tune. Today, he wants a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution against “gay marriage”. Does he really feal this way? Who knows. He might, but it’s not in his best interests to give any indication that he’s the least bit tolerant to the issues we face. But Romney’s problems are so many. He has so many skeletons in the closet.

The only other that has more is Giuliani. He flip flops so often that it’s honestly impossible to know where Rudy stands on any one issue. For heaven’s sake, he used to dress up in drag, attend gay pride parades, and lived with a gay couple. Now, if I were that gay couple and had any sense of self respect, I wouldn’t even talk to the schmuck. Rudy’s current position is that he’s against gay marriage AND (and this is a change) now against civil unions for gay couples. He now feels that all of our issues can be dealt with by contracts. Nice. What if the state of Kansas doesn’t want to honor that contract? I guess we can work it up through the court system until it reaches the Supreme Court. Yeah, I’m sure they’d enforce a contractual agreement a gay couple has together. The problem is, they would see that as an endorsement of a marriage-like agreement and vote it down.

Back to Larry Craig... he needs to shut up and deal with the fact that many of the people in his party are sleaze bags just like him, who would sell their own mother for a few votes, just like him. What other treatment did he honestly expect from Mitt Romney? Fairness? Honesty? Integrity? GET REAL.

WASHINGTON: Joseph Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee who lists his party affiliation as “Independent Democrat”, will break party ranks to endorse the presidential bid of the Republican John McCain, sources close to Senator McCain say. (source)

Joseph Lieberman, like Joseph Stalin, such a disappointment. Why doesn’t Lieberman just stop using the word “Democrat” altogether, because he isn’t one. He’s not really an “Independent” either. He’s more of a puppet of the Republican Party. I honestly don’t know why he just doesn’t be honest and join them.

And what is an “Independent Democrat” anyway? A new party? I thought you were an Independent, a Democrat, or a Republican.

I watched the 60 minutes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” segment Sunday night. This is, in part, what Andrew Sullivan had to say about how gays are viewed in America today.

I guess it’s a sad but useful reminder that gay people - even those who risk their lives to defend their country - are still, in the eyes of the Republican base, a sub-moral caste of undesirables, people whose presence in any institution - the military, the academy, the priesthood, civil marriage - inherently debases it. There is, alas, nothing we can do to rebut this - no act of courage we can display, no love we can profess, no virtue we can uphold, no family we can defend to prove our civic equality and human dignity. Our inferiority is a priori for the religious right. It makes us impossible to “bond with,” because we are moral contaminants. That’s what we’ve learned this past decade. And it’s the only reason the policy remains in place. (source)

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t always agree with Andrew Sullivan. In fact, more times than not, I don’t agree with him. But he hit the nail on the head this time.

THIS is why I write less and less on “gay rights”, “marriage equality”, and all the rest. I’ve never been a quitter. But I’ve come to realize the hopelessness of this battle that we fight. It’s hopeless to me, because this is a battle that will span lifetimes. For me, in the small amount of time I have left on this earth, these issues will not be resolved. For me, I’ve moved on and am living my life the best way I can. That means that I won’t discuss with my family why I want to marry my partner, when I’m talking to people who feel that a civil union is the appropriate arrangement for people like us. I can talk about important legal options that marriage affords us. Their answer is to get a Power of Attorney, etc. Of course we have that, but that is much easier to legally challenge. And here I am going over this argument AGAIN when I know that it is hopeless.

What does one say to a gay soldier who is in Iraq (I’ve talked to many of them online) who is risking his very life for our country? What do you say to him when he is discharged when he is no longer needed, after troop levels rise? What do you say to a gay person who was denied the right to be with his/her partner in their final moments because the person who made the decision to deny the visitation is a self righteous bigot? What do you say to them?

Ninety percent of the population of this country is composed of selfish bastards who care only for themselves and their needs. This applies also to the African American community who, after going through a horrific past at the hands of white folks, conveniently distance themselves from our struggle by telling us, “...but YOUR struggle is nothing like OUR struggle...”. I guess it’s easy to forget and be selfish.

I can’t tell you how many straight soldiers I have supported in this war. I bought phone cards for many so they could call their families back home because they couldn’t afford to. I did this only to find out later what they really felt about gay people. They pretty much feel that we should have no rights or equality.

But that’s ok, because I happen to belong to that ten percent of Americans who are not selfish bastards. I think of others, whether they like me or not. That is the lesson that America needs to learn. That is the test of what we are made of. And let me tell you, we are FAILING MISERABLY. The test is simply, how do we as a country treat a minority we don’t like? The answer is clear. We legislatively trample on them without mercy or a second thought about what this will do to them (yes, I’m talking about all the amendments to state constitutions prohibiting marriage or civil unions to people like us). Yeah, something to really be proud of; stripping people of hope.

As for me, I’m starting to reluctantly buy into this notion that being a selfish bastard has it’s merits. The phone cards that I issued to the soldiers have been canceled. I guess they’ll just have to learn to live with disappointment. I have. It’s the American way.

And in the spirit of moving on, we are thinking of getting a “civil union” because hell, it can’t hurt. At least in the State of Connecticut, it has some meaning. I mean, last week, I received and read the benefits package offered by our company. In every respect, they mention “spouse/partner” when applicable. That has little to do with our state offering civil unions. It has to do with me making it clear to our management the inequalities that we deal with. I was told earlier this year that they would change their benefits to include partners in the package. They do not need proof of a civil union to do this. Sometimes, one person can make a difference.

As far as the civil union is concerned, I’ll post it up so you can all see what a civil union looks like. I’m sure at the top it will have big fancy letters that say, “Civil Union ... State of Connecticut...” blah blah blah. I’ll frame it. Someday, it may have historical significance pointing to a time where separate and supposedly equal was the law of the land. I’ll title the entry as “Our Certificate of Inequality”. I do want to be accurate, after all. It’s strange. I thought that joining two people was supposed to be joyful, and not such a damn struggle.

This is why I hate talking about these issues anymore. They always turn out to be so negative. I hate that. But, negative or not, I’m being honest about how I feel. Would you want me to lie?

ON NOV. 30, a group of 28 retired generals and admirals released a letter urging Congress to repeal the law mandating the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays. [...]

The letter followed by just two days a Nov. 28 CNN forum for GOP presidential contenders in which all the candidates (except Giuliani) expressed support for the current policy, arguing that it is “working” or that it would be disruptive to integrate open gays into the military. Sen. John McCain said specifically that senior generals had told him that the policy is “working.”

Is the policy working? Well, a lot of deplorable policies have “worked,” depending on your goal, but that doesn’t mean that they are the best policies or that other policies would not work better. Racial segregation in the military “worked.” For that matter, racial segregation in the whole Southern society “worked” too. At least for white people. Stalin’s concentration camps “worked.”

Islamic “honor killings” of women who have been raped “work” too, I suppose, if you are not the victim. But do many people want to defend those policies as the best policy?

Remember those Arabic-language students a couple of years ago who, despite the military’s crying need for Arabic-language translators, were discharged because they were gay? Is that an example of the policy “working”? What about all the other skills gays may have been taught that are lost when they are discharged from the military? More examples of the policy “working”? (source)

Bigotry... always “works”.

It works because it’s very existence is a testament to the circumstances and world it exists in. Throughout the history of this country, we have always justified our actions because it was “the right thing to do”, or that it “worked”. Today, we do the same thing. We justify torture by saying that we need to protect the country from terrorists. That’s a hugely broad statement to make. Not one of the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo have been charged . But, the system “works”, because the President says it works.

And what about those Arabic-language translators that were discharged from the military because of their homosexuality? Was that in the best interest of this country? Right after they were discharged, the military put out a plea for translators that could speak Arabic.

And what about the ban the American Red Cross has against gay men donating blood? I suppose I can understand their rationale, saying that gay men are more likely to be exposed to the AIDS virus. Again, a very broad (and very dangerous) assumption. Their ban prevents any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from donating blood. That’s their rationale, and their policy.

But here’s what I don’t get about it... A straight man who has had sexual relations with a female prostitute(s), must wait for three months before he is again eligible to donate blood. He suffers no life-time ban for this. We are talking about a virus here that really doesn’t know or care about sexual orientation. Perhaps the heterosexual form of AIDS only has a life span of 3 months? I’m just trying to make sense of the Red Cross policy. But, apparently, that policy “works”.

Bigotry... always “works”.

Oh, one more thing. I understand the Republican candidates views with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. My biggest disappointment is with Senator John McCain. He actually has a brain on his shoulders and he doesn’t have a hard on for Jesus so much. He knows better. He served with men in the military he knew were gay. Today, would he be able to look those men in the eye and say, “You should have been discharged.”?

He would probably say, “No.” Yet, he supports the current policy because he feels the policy is “working”. Such hypocrisy. John, you showed great courage and conviction in the past. What happened to that?

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The local Boy Scouts chapter on Monday moved a step closer to being evicted from its city-owned home after ignoring a deadline to either reverse the organization’s policy on gay scouts or agree to pay $200,000 in rent.

The Cradle of Liberty Council currently pays $1 a year rent for its city-owned headquarters. But last year, the city said it could not continue to legally rent the property for such a nominal sum to a private group that discriminates. [...]

Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for the council, said it cannot go against the national group’s policy and cannot afford $200,000 in rent. (source)

Years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Boy Scouts of America, being a private organization and all, can discriminate against gay men. Today, they do not allow gay scout masters, or gay scouts for that matter. If you are discovered to be gay, you are out. Yeah, kind of like the military (except now, because since we are at war, gays are needed in the military, but that’s another subject).

I was disappointed in the Supreme Court ruling because it was my hope that the Boy Scouts would eventually come around and see people on their merits, and not judge them by one label. That hasn’t happened. So now, the Boy Scouts of America feel that it’s wrong that instead of paying $1.00 a year for rent, the City of Philadelphia is going to make them pay what others would pay for the space, $200,000 a year. This because Philadelphia has an ordinance against discrimination.

The Boy Scouts of America have a choice to pay or not pay, just like they still have a choice if they will discriminate or not. There is a growing cost to discrimination, and in Philadelphia at least, it looks like it is catching up to them.

If they wish to continue with such discrimination, I’m sure they would find a warm reception with religious-right-wing-minded people.