DISQUS

LOL! Happy New Year, bigassbelle. I don't always agree with you, but I always enjoy you.

With Lieberman, silly. Your insistence that Lieberman and Burris are the same, when in fact they're clearly not--even though both situations are teeth grinders. I think that part of what's not being spoken here is that many people, yourself included, perhaps, think that Lieberman is getting away with it because he's Jewish as well as white. I would classify that as anti-Semitism--that assumption that Jews are dishonest and can get away with anything (because everyone knows how powerful Jews are, right? Kind of like all of those rich white gay men). Lieberman's getting away with it because Obama wants his vote and because he's sure that Lieberman will be voted out next term. Why play the bad guy when you can seem like the reasonable guy and still get the same result--and Lieberman's vote as well in the meantime?

That Obama, he's a smart one.

If I'm wrong and neither you nor anyone else on J&J who just can't let go of Lieberman haven't a bone of anti-Semitism in your bodies, I'm both wrong and glad, and I would owe everyone an apology. But I'd be pretty surprised to be *totally* wrong on this one.

And I'm not a troll, or necessarily white (as your "race baiting ass" comment appears to imply): I just don't agree with you. Surely a Christian Progressive Liberal can live with a difference of opinion.

Wishing you and yours a very happy New Year.

Stevens lost.

Yes, he would have. I'm not saying "Oh silly you, there's no racism in America or in politics, or etc." But I am saying that I think that the senate, which was nearly unanimous in saying that they wouldn't seat whoever Blago appointed several weeks ago, is simply sticking to its guns (for once). And that they would've done the same if the appointee had been white--especially if the appointee had been white--not only to avoid being accused of inconsistency, but because they would've been accused of racism.

Don't let Rush and Blago play you.

Honey, Stevens won't be sworn in because he lost the election.

Because he's Jewish, silly, and there's enough unspoken anti-Semitism underlying this baseless comparison (baseless for all of the very substantial reasons Piepiepie has pointed out a few post above) to sink a ship.

Right. And if Blago had appointed someone white, I think that sentiment here at J&J would've been very different. Which is precisely what Blago, Burris, and Rush are counting on--successfully, it seems.

Tell that to Bayard Rustin, one of King's senior advisers and one of the primary minds behind the March on Washington, who was sent to the back of the bus when it was discovered he was queer. Or to Alvin Ailey, or Essex Hemphill, or Keith Haring, or Marlon Riggs, or Whitney Houston, or any of the other black queer folks who have given so much, yet been persecuted for their queerness, or died from HIV/AIDS (because no one wanted to put money into education or treatment to save "our kind"), or self destructed in front of our eyes.

I have some bad news for you and some of the other bigots I've been been reading on this thread and other Prop 8 threads on Jack and Jill who keep talking about "they" and "those people." Lots and lots and lots of black people self-identify as gay and/or have same-sex sex: being gay is not a white condition nor a white disease. And being able to make, support, and keep family has everything to do with survival. How can anyone look at the damage done to black people during the days or slavery, and even now, when there's so little respect for making it possible for families to stay together.

What on earth is the benefit to anyone of my not being able to visit my wife in the hospital, or make decisions on her behalf? Or pick my child up from school (because I'm not the "real," i.e., biological) parent?

We're talking about love here. Love that hurts no one, unless you want to make that crazy argument that somehow your marriage became less loving or valuable because of mine. And what I'm seeing is sheer hatred and meanness. You don't like gay marriage? Don't marry me. But shame on you for pissing on my struggle or trying to make my life harder.

My bad, Jesse (though it would be nice to drop the name calling). Let me try this again.

Please be sure to tell all of your alleged gay friends that you voted against Prop 8 because you don't think that gay rights are a civil rights issue, you don't think we're oppressed, and you conceive of gay people primarily as rich white men. And then please write back and tell us their response. And whether they send you a holiday card this year or keep inviting you over to dinner.

Please be sure to tell all of your alleged gay friends that you voted to strip them of their constitutional right to have their partnerships and families accorded the same cultural status and legal protections as yours and then please write back and tell us their response. And whether they send you a holiday card this year or keep inviting you over to dinner.

And we have every right to boycott the businesses of individuals and groups that voted to remand us to second-class citizenship.

Oh no you didn't! (Why it's not ok to support Prop 8, then hide behind the Constitution)

For the record, I was determined not to write about Proposition 8 passing in California. (Because really, how many times and in how many ways can you say, "I hate you, 52% of California. I hate you. I hate you"?) But then I read the article in this past Wednesday's New York Times about Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. He resigned earlier this week after activists outed his $1,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 folks and several prominent gay men in theater complained — including Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer ("Hairspray") who called Eckern to say that he would not let his work be performed in the theater.

Now Eckern, along with Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the ballot measure, are defending their bigotry as a constitutional right and complaining that those who protest their actions are being intolerant. Per Schubert: "No matter your opinion on Prop. 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate or harass anyone for exercising their constitutional rights."

No sense of irony, straight guys. But hearing them play the you're-the-real-bigot-for-punishing-me-for-exercising-my-right-to-free-speech card just got on my last gay nerve. So here we are. I'm writing about Prop 8.

Of course Eckern deserves the anger and disdain of his peers — just as if he had generously given to a movement that amended the California constitution to reinstate racial segregation, or strip Jews of the right to practice law, or forbid Mormons from holding public office, or intern all Muslims in camps for the duration of the "War on Terror." Actively fighting to remand a group of people to second-class citizenship, as Eckern did, is no mere matter of opinion or exercise in free speech: it's an assault on human dignity and human rights. And those of us who know the historical cost of silence damn well better speak up and let the Eckerns and Schuberts of this world know that their behavior is unacceptable — and has consequences.

Because Eckern, who is married with children, is just not getting this on his own. He still thinks, per his statement of resignation, that he can simultaneously be "loving and supportive" of his lesbian sister (!) while refusing her the opportunity ever to have her union and her family be considered equal to his. He still thinks of himself as someone who does not "support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear."

But he is wrong. And oh to be a fly on the wall at the Eckern Thanksgiving table this year when his sister and her family arrive…

Days like today it's hard to say sober. Still--a soda water with lime, please.

HRC and her husband have gone above and beyond the call of duty in proving that they're "team players." She doesn't have any "keep" to earn.

I hope it shakes her to her roots to realize that the same guy who probably really does hob knob with her by email periodically is willing to throw her under the bus when he senses that acknowledging that in the press might not play to his benefit.

From this morning's Talking Points Memo:

Report: Clinton Donors Helping Obama, But Not Vice-Versa
The Los Angeles Times reports http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008... that big donors for Hillary Clinton have donated a total of over $2.5 million up through June to the Obama campaign and to the campaign's joint victory fund with the DNC. On the other hand, Obama donors have only given about $105,000 to help retire Hillary's campaign debts during that period.

I'm not a big fan of giving federal taxpayer money to faith-based organizations, but this item from Pam's House Blend warmed my heart:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jses...
Blend exclusive: Obama faith-based initiative plan will bar reparative therapy, proselytizing (+)
by: Pam Spaulding
Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:40:43 AM EDT
There have been legitimate concerns raised by the plan set out by presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, to implement a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to provide secular social services to the poor and the needy in local communities through faith-based organizations (FBOs). One major issue for the LGBT community has been the prospect of anti-gay orgs using tax dollars to proselytize or provide services that are detrimental to the community. See my earlier post.

A source with Senator Obama's campaign (Director of the LGBT Vote, Dave Noble) has now confirmed to Pam's House Blend that under no circumstances will funds from the program will be granted to FBOs for proselytizing or reparative therapy.

Under the Obama plan, MCC congregations, LGBT-welcoming Methodist and Unitarian congregations, and other affirming churches will have access to funds to do much-needed work in communities large and small of great importance -- HIV/AIDS education, for instance, relief efforts, etc.

With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups - especially smaller congregations and those that aren't well connected - don't know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations. We rely too much on conferences in Washington, instead of getting technical assistance to the people who need it on the ground. What this means is that what's stopping many faith-based groups from helping struggling families is simply a lack of knowledge about how the system works.

The history of this kind of program under the Bush administration has been to highly politicize it by funneling tax dollars to hard-right, anti-gay religious groups to pacify them.

Thanks for the facts, TBHP. The truth is always refreshing.

Playing chess; skateboarding (though not at the same time).

Oh how I love the Bay Area.

LOL! Exactly. If you sell your candidate as the agent of change and the harbinger of a new politics, you don't get to switch tunes when he acts like every other spineless hack to "Well, he's better than McCain."

New York is so heavily Democratic that I can vote for whomever the hell I want, but I'm certainly hoping that Obama won't have disappointed me so badly by November that I'll be forced to write in Howard the Duck.

Clinton voted against it. And I hope she's getting some joy from watching Obama forced to vote conservatively to appeal to the lowest common national denominator, as she routinely was forced to do in anticipation of her presidential run--and in the face of a media that pounced on her every move.

Not that I'm planning on holding my breath for either Obama or the more vociferously less discerning of his supporters to come to this realization.

Props to Jill for this post. I don't think that Obama's stance makes him any less of a politician than Clinton, and I'll still vote for him in November: it's just disappointing to see him cave like any other hack after all of that brave talk about change.

Thanks to you for getting back to me.

Thanks! Much appreciated.

Will read when I have a second, afroacademic. Thanks.

BTW, don't be thinking I let Clinton off the hook for all of his craziness!