jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.
Subscribe

Archive for February, 2009

Police Questioning Suspect in Murder of Straight Man for Being “Gay”

February 27, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Hate Crimes, LGBT News

Police have found and are questioning the second suspect in the crime committed against José O. Sucuzhañay on December 7, 2008 in Brooklyn.  Mr. José Sucuzhañay and his brother were walking arm and arm when Keith Phoenix and Hakim Scott [allegedly] attacked the two men while shouting antigay and anti-Hispanic slurs.

The minority against minority attack drew much attention, including one of my previous posts, as both Mr. José Sucuzhañay and his brother were heterosexual men.  The attack was based on the perception of their homosexuality, as two brothers showed affection to one another in public and was also apparently associated with their Hispanic roots.

Police had previously shown a video wherein Mr. Phoenix was paying a toll and smiling only 19 minutes after the attack which resulted in José Sucuzhañay death.

Police Find Second Suspect in Hate Crime Killing – City Room Blog – NYTimes.com.

Heterosexuals for Gay Rights

February 26, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

There’s a group of people that often get over looked in the struggle for civil equality for LGBT people; our heterosexual allies.  Care2 is hosting the group Heterosexuals for Gay Rights.  Unfortunately, the group is small and not well known, but deserves a loud and spirited, “Thank you.”  On their group page, it states:

Heterosexuals for Gay Rights, though aimed towards the straight community, is a group where all supporters of the gay rights movement can gather, get acquainted, and have a blast! Together we are strong.

A very special “shout out” to readers, Juan and his wife, Elisha and all our other heterosexual allies who are marching thru the illusion of the anti-gay rhetoric beside us.  You are our heroes.

Supreme Court Denies Hearing on School Anti-Harrassment Measures

February 25, 2009 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Youth Issues

In 2002, students at Boyd County High School requested to be allowed to form a Gay Straight Alliance (“GSA”).  Unfortunately, due to religious bias and prejudice against homosexuals, they were met with adversity.  Although the GSA was approved, within two months of its formation the school banned the GSA and purportedly banned all other student organizations for that term.

As a result, several students (along with their parents) filed suit against the school district in federal court.  A preliminary injunction was issued which required the school board to provide equal access to the GSA and mandated anti-harassment training for all students. The school district then adopted a policy against “Harassment/Discrimination” defining such as:

…unlawful behavior based on race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex[,] actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, or disability that is sufficiently severe, pervasive or creates a hostile or abusive educational environment.

In a further effort to fulfill its requirement, the school board created two training videos. One of the videos included a passage from a clinical psychologist, which advised:

…We all get self-centered and start to think that our way is the right way and our way is the correct way.  We all want to believe that we have evidence that our way is the correct way…

So… no matter where you go, no matter what you do, no matter who you meet, you are going to find people that you don’t like.  You’re going to find people that you disagree with.  You’re going to find people that you don’t like the way they act.  It can’t be avoided, not, not anywhere in the world, it can’t be avoided.  You’re going to find people that you believe are absolutely wrong.  You’re going to think[,” B]ut not to them.  Because they believe you are wrong.  You can’t avoid meeting people that you believe are wrong.  But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don’t like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, whole heartedly, absolutely, they are wrong.  Just because you believe that does not give you permission to say anything about it.  It doesn’t require that you do anything.  You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone.  There is not permission for you to point it out to them.

The video concluded with a statement by Matthew Spade, the High School Compliance Coordinator, wherein he advised:

In today’s video you learned about bullying, you learned about name calling and we hope you learned a little bit about how to treat people with respect, and with that respect also comes the school’s respect for your beliefs, your religious beliefs and your sense of right and wrong.  We would never try to influence those things.  They are very sacred and they should only be influenced by you and your parents and family.  Please realize that with the video that we showed today we are only trying to instill a sense of honor amongst our students to learn not to treat someone unfairly or harass someone because they are different from us.  If you have any questions about the video that you just saw, there will be a short question and answer session at the conclusion of this video.  If you do not feel comfortable asking these questions in front of your classmates, feel free to contact the counselors through the school email system.  We would hope that you would also discuss these issues with your family at home.  Thank you.

In spite of Mr. Spade’s statement, parents of the would-be hecklers feared that the new polices and the mandatory training would not only discourage, but prohibit their children from speaking about their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.  Eventually, a group of parents sued the school board claiming the policy was a violation of their constitutional rights, including: (1) due process; (2) equal protection; and (3) free exercise of religion.  For these alleged violations of their rights, the Plaintiffs (Morrison, et al.) sought relief in the form of a declaratory judgment (non-monetary), injunction (non-monetary), actual damages (monetary), nominal damages (also monetary), costs and attorney fees (obviously monetary).

Six months after the original filing, the school board revised its policy and codes of conduct.  Under the revised codes, anti-homosexual comments would be allowed unless it was “sufficiently severe or pervasive that it adversely affects a student’s education or creates a climate of hostility or intimidation for that student, both from the perspective of an objective educator and from the perspective of the student at whom the harassment is directed.”  [thud noise added]

These revisions should have rendered the Plaintiffs’ claims moot; however, the plaintiffs, having already forced the school district to change their policy in order to ensure religious students can tell other students that they are going to hell, plaintiffs continued the litigation.

The parties then filed motions for summary judgment and the district court granted the defendant school district’s motion while denying the motion filed by the plaintiffs.  The court, in its opinion, stated it “was not inclined to adjudge the constitutionality of policies no longer in effect.”  [Can I get an Amen?]  The court further decreed that the plaintiffs claim for damages failed because the plaintiffs had no measure or amount for the damages they were alleging.

However, in October, 2007, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court and declared that the plaintiff’s request for “nominal damages” does not require support by fact.  Further the appellate court found that nominal damages do not require proof of actual injury as they are “symbolic”.

This left the court to decide whether or not Morrison had “standing” to bring his nominal-damages claim, or, in other words – does Morrison have sufficient stake in a controversy to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy? Because the Court felt Morrison “chilled” his speech to prevent punishment, the court held that it constituted “injury-in-fact.”  The court went on to declare that “Morrison easily satisfies the causation part of the standing inquiry” and surprisingly found that he meets the third test of standing, redressability. The court actually wrote in their opinion:

Although a favorable decision cannot provide Morrison an opportunity to travel back in time and utter the speech he withheld, it can provide him with nominal damages. Even though these damages amount to little, they serve to vindicate his rights.

The dissenting justice wrote:

… the fact remains that they [the Morrisons] have already won that challenge when they forced the district, under court supervision, to change its policy.  All that remains is an as-applied pre-enforcement challenge for nominal damage based on Morrison’s choice to chill his own speech based on his perception that he would be disciplined for speaking.

I tend to agree with the dissention on this one in spite of my relentless support of free speech and expression.  I just couldn’t understand how the court determined that Morrison had standing for the suit.

Then, I was affirmed.  After a petition for rehearing was filed by the Board of Education, The 6th Court of Appeals amended their decision in April, 2008.  In the amended ruling, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court due to the Plaintiff’s lack of standing declaring that there was no “injury-in-fact.”  Justice, it seems, is served.

Then, in November, 2008, approximately six years after the original lawsuit was filed, Morrison filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  The issue presented to the Supreme Court was:

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly determined that Petitioner lacked standing and could not pursue a claim for even nominal damages.

Within 3 months, the Supreme Court denied the petition.  The result is thus:  Regardless of whether you believe someone is bad, wrong or unlikeable, you can no longer call them things like “jew“, “spick“, “gook“, “nigger” or “faggot” while at a Boyd County school because such language is hostile – yet you can tell them all they are going to hell for being “jewish”, “black”, “disabled, “a woman”, “asian” or a “homosexual.”  The harshness of the language may be downplayed, but the message remains the same mantra, “I think I’m better than you.”

Plaintiffs relevant to Appeal Court decision were Timothy Allen Morrison II, his parents, Timothy and Mary Morrison, Brian Nolen and Debora Jones (Brian and Debora are parents of other Boyd County Middle School students).  They were represented by Kevin H. Theriot, Alliance Defense Fund, 15192 Rosewood, Leawood, KS  66224, kevintheriot@bellsouth.net, (913) 685-8000.  Inquiries made to Mr. Theriot were not responded to prior to publication.

The defendant Board of Education of Boyd County was represented by Winter R. Huff, Law Offices of John G. Prather, PPSC, PO Box 616, Somerset, Kentucky 42502-0616, (606) 679-1626.  Special thanks to Ms. Huff for providing documentation to support the research involved in this article.

CLICK HERE for the complete text of the Amended 6th U.S. Court of Appeals decision.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: U.S. Should Remain Anti-Gay Because God Said So

February 25, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Stupid Things People Say About Gays

On February 23, 2009, Scott Renfroe, a senator in Colorado stood before his peers and made the following remarks:

I oppose this bill because of what the will of the people was [and] because of what my personal beliefs are and I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also.  In the beginning God created our earth…

[insert sermon of Biblical proportions and heavy breathing here]

Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural creative order and it is an offense to God the creater who created men and women male and female for procreation.

[insert additional Bible quotes and additional heavy breathing]

The truth is what the family was created for in the beginning, that is a husband a wife and children and that is why we are here and this goes against that.  This is just a continuation of the detraction of the family.  And what I, I say all that to back up my beliefs and where we are going with this.  I believe government is here, we are here to create the laws of our land.  And when we create laws that goes against what Biblically we are supposed to stand for, I think we are, we are agreeing or allowing to go forward a sin which should not be treated by government as something that is legal.  And that is what we are going to do with this and we have done in the past.  We are taking sins and making them to be legally ok and that is wrong.  That is an abomination according to scripture…

[insert sinful rhetoric and more heavy breathing]

Hear is the YouTube of the sermon:

“The truth.”

That is the phrase often spoken by evangelicals when making their decrees against homosexuality.  They are speaking the truth.  I have a very different truth.

TRUTH: Homosexuals exist.

TRUTH: I do not believe in God.  (note I did not say God does not exist or that God does exist; thus the statement is true.)

TRUTH: Eating pork is listed as an abomination in the Bible.

TRUTH: There are no state or federal laws against eating pork.

While all sins may be created equal according to Senator Renfroe’s beliefs (not truths), all crimes are not equal according to the legislation, court decrees and mandates.  In fact, many laws have been established and repealed over the years, like: Prohibition (which had Biblical support), Segregation (which had Biblical support), Women driving (which had Biblical support), Sodomy laws (which had Biblical support), and more.  Further, many states treat things that are illegal differently and provide worldly punishment (rather than after-life punishment) for those laws.  For example, in some states the possession of marijuana can render one imprisoned for 10 years (or more), while in others, it is a small, misdemeanor offense punishable by fine.

Sin is distinguishable from law as law is distinguishable from sin.  Your theology should not be our democracy.  As so eloquently told in the book, The Kite Runner, “The only sin is theft.”

Bill Maher: Your Silly Gods Cost Us Too Much

February 24, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Religion

Not so very long ago, I wrote a blog post where I discussed the history of Christian violence.  Shortly after, I discussed the use of the Bible to justify discrimination against African Americans, women and homosexuals.  Those two post obviously represent my feelings toward the church and its power.  I find it frightening, but not in that “We’ll put the fear of God in you” sort of way; in the “boy you sure got a pretty mouth” sort of way.

As an atheist, it is surprising to me that the first thought that came to my mind after hearing Bill Maher say, “Someday we all do have to confront the notion that our silly gods cost us too much” was: Bill Maher better be glad he’s wearing a rubber suit ‘cuz God going to strike him down with lightening.

It then occurred to me that I may subconsciously be a believer in “God.”  All day today I debated the ramifications of what it will mean now that I realize I do believe in God.  Now, instead of sleeping in on Sunday until 9 a.m. (10 if I’m lucky), I will have to rise early, dress like I’m going to the office, have a nice breakfast so my stomach doesn’t interrupt the guy at the altar, drive 50-ish miles to the nearest city (I’m certainly not ready to go to church in the country) and listen while I’m told what my belief in God will require.

That’s where the fantasy of my thoughts end.  I realized at that very moment that the reason I do not believe in God (now or even when listening to Bill Maher) is because people expect you to do certain things in order to believe in God.  You can’t declare, “I believe in God” and just have people believe you, you must prove you believe in God.

How does one prove they believe in God?  Let’s see:

  • Go to church.
  • Say, “Bless you,” way too often.
  • Tell other people they must believe in God too.
  • Donate money to organizations that make people cry, but not tears of joy.
  • Pray over my meals.
  • Tell other people they must pray with me or their eternal soul will suffer unthinkable ill.
  • Give 10% of my assets to the church.
  • Pray the church will raise enough money from the very person that is giving the church the money.
  • Get married to some-one of the opposite sex whether or not we love each other.
  • Have children.
  • Teach my children to believe in the same God I believe in.
  • Never have an independent thought without thinking its a sin.

So, if you ever wonder what makes a person who was once a believer stop believing, the answer is simple, I can only believe what it is I believe, whether it be in tooth fairies or money trees, gods or a God, it is what I believe.  Perhaps ironically, I “believe” that is exactly the same reason people do believe in God.

Therefore, I disagree with what Bill Maher did, but not what Bill Maher said.  I agree that “gods,” by away of religion, have cost us greatly.  I disagree with him using the term “silly.”  It was disrespectful to a people.  As someone in a group that is often disrespected (homosexuals), I can truly empathize with the way it feels to be disrespected.  The way those that are believers in God felt as those words fell from his mouth is exactly the same feeling I feel every time I hear you condemn me.

Where Are Our Enemies? A Hate Crime in Georgia

February 21, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Hate Crimes, LGBT News

A couple in Columbia County, GA awoke two find anti-gay graffiti littering their house and car.  Currently, there are no suspects.  In an interview with WJBF, one of the men stated:

We don’t really have any enemies, there isn’t really anybody… that doesn’t like us.

Although a difficult lesson to learn, all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons have people that don’t “like us.”  The rationale for this disdain is ignorant, but it exists.

Throughout my life I have experienced this level of hatred and have always been very cognizant that I have enemies, even those I have not met.  These are people like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and Meg Whiman (founder of eBay).   These people, in spite of never having met me or even spoken to me, dispise me enough to concern themselves with my life, my rights and my quest for happiness.  I have been aware that they exist all of my life and never forget about my enemies.

Let this be a lesson to LGBT people, no matter what you believe these people are our neighbors, our co-workers and the cashiers at our grocery stores.  We must always be aware that they are lurking, waiting to make their move against us – but we must not be afraid.

We all gasp this can’t happen here
We’re all much too civilized
Where can these monsters hide

But they are knocking on our front door
They’re rocking in our cradles
They’re preaching in our churches
And eating at our tables

See:  Columbia County Gay Couple Targeted for Possible Hate Crime | WJBF.

Author Merle Horwitz, Love is Love… but Business is Business

February 19, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

Those of us in the gay community who are in long-term relationships have many legal hurdles to overcome when it comes to taxes, mortgages, health care, estate planning and other property matters, but now with Merle Horwitz’ book, Love is Love But… Business is Business, we can jump through one of those hurdles with less hassle and more humph.

In his book, Mr. Horwitz, a former trial attorney and contracts law guru, provides simple advice and guidance in navigating the realm of cohabitation.  Within the confines of the pages of this small but insightful instruction manual, Mr. Horwitz answers questions such as:

  • What happens to property acquired jointly?
  • How to I keep my separate property as my property?
  • What if you are cohabiting with one person and having an affair with another?
  • What about the kids?
  • “Can homosexuals who are cohabiting without a contract have the same rights arise as heterosexuals?”
  • and many more of the worries of cohabitation.

Mr. Horwitz is quick to point out that the cohabitation agreement in his book, although primarily for “those who can’t get married or those who won’t get married,” is not an agreement for the type of relationship, but for the property secured before and during the relationship.  In other words, the book is about property issues, not the nature of the relationship.

I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Horwitz about the contract and its validity when confronted with various state laws.  For example, in some states, same-gender marriage bans written into the state’s constitution include language which bans anything “similar to marriage.”  This language, in large part because it is so broad, could potentially be construed to include wills, powers of attorneys and even Mr. Horwitz’ Cohabitation Contract.

In fact, the language is so broad that when proposed to Wisconsin voters, then attorney general wrote:

A ‘yes’ vote [for the marriage ban] would also prohibit recognition of any legal status which is identical or substantially similar to marriage for unmarried persons of either the same sex or different sexes. The constitution would not further specify what is, or what is not, a legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage. Whether any particular type of domestic relationship, partnership or agreement between unmarried persons would be prohibited by this amendment would be left to further legislative or judicial determination.

In spite of the fact that voter’s were presented with these remarks (which read like a warning label) prior to casting their ballot, Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly approved the amendment.

However, when asked how this language may affect the validity of contracts in jurisdictions such as Wisconsin, Mr. Horwitz stated:

That’s so vague, it cannot be enforced.

Mr. Horwitz further explained that the contract could not be invalidated based upon laws against cohabitation:

I’m perfectly convinced that if two people have a contract whether they are the same gender or otherwise, when it comes to enforcing that contract… why would that not be enforceable because the nature of the relationship doesn’t even come into evidence?

In part because I’m less optimistic than Mr. Horwitz and in part because I’m an activist and want to establish Court challenges of these laws, I asked Mr. Horwitz if he felt submitting the contract for declaratory judgment in jurisdictions such as Wisconsin would be advisable.  His response was resounding:

You don’t ask for trouble.  You don’t want to do that.

As a person who would want my contract to remain fully enforceable during my life or after my death, he’s absolutely right, I would not want to do that.  But would I want to do that as an activist for LGBT rights?  I contemplated this issue by asking two questions: (1) What would happen if the contract was declared by the Court to be invalid; and (2) What would happend if the contract was declared by the Court to be valid?

(1) What would happen if the contract was declared invalid?

It is my belief that if declaratory judgment was issued stating the contract was invalid, such would open numerous doors for Court challenges and expose this legislation for its spiteful content.  Many moderate folk claim to be supportive and non-critical of homosexuals, but wrongfully believe that marriage is a sacred right.  Some wrongfully argue that laws against same-gender marriage are not discriminatroy because same-gender couples can obtain the same rights by way of contracts and other legal documents.  The declaration of a cohabitation contract as invalid by a Court would certainly show beyond any argument that these arguments are completely false.  Thus, a victory for the LGBT civil rights movement, in spite of a negative ruling.

(2) What would happen if the contract was declared valid?

Although on the surface (or prima facie since we’re talking law) it would seem to be a victory for LGBT civil rights, such a finding would improperly re-enforce the argument outlined above; that same gender couples can obtain the same legal rights as married couples by legal documentation; therefore, a bitter sweet moment.  Obviously, many benefits cannot be obtained by contract that can be obtained through civil marriage (such as: Social Security benefits, health care tax relief, wrongful death or survivor benefits).  However, it is unlikely that those making arguments against same-gender civil marriage would be aware that such inequalities exist.

I thus decided that Mr. Horwitz is a genius.  “You don’t ask for trouble.”

You can purchase Mr. Horwitz’ book (which includes a CD with an editable contract) “Love is Love… but Business is Business” at Amazon.com.

Please remember to always seek the advice of an attorney familiar with laws in your jurisdiction.  No information herein is meant to constitute legal advise. This post’s author, Jay, is not an attorney.

Promoting Hatred with the Word of God

February 19, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Religion

Historically, the Bible has been used to secure the white heterosexual man’s superiority.  In spite of this, we still haven’t learned our lesson.

Biblical passages have been used to define specific gender roles, including eliminating women from church leadership.  In fact, during the second century, Tertullian wrote:

It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office.

This sort of thinking continued on, and more recently, Martin Luther wrote:

…the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…

This was a blatant attack on not only women in the church, but also women in politics and matters outside that of the “home.”  Unfortunately, in spite of efforts of many churches to be more inclusive of women, the archaic belief that women are inferior remains even in modern times.  Evangelical author, John MacArthur, Jr., wrote:

One of the most devastating, and debilitating, and destructive movements in our day is the ‘Feminist Movement.’ It is changing not only the world but sadly it is changing the church, and as a result the Word of God is being dishonored; opponents are having plenty bad to say about us and God our Savior is being dishonored and shamed. Radical feminism has brainwashed our culture. It has brainwashed our culture to the degree that even the church has fallen victim to this.

Many who believe that a woman is less than a man and that men should rule over women cite the following passage from the Bible:

To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you.’  Genesis 3:16

Other Bible passages cited to support the degradation of women include:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.  Ephesians 5:22-24

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  Timothy 2:11-14 [ESV]

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.  Corinthians 11:3 [NIV]

Evangelicals also use the Bible to disenfranchise, insult, enslave and demean “people of color”.  This is largely based on the story of Canaan, or “The Curse of Ham”  (See Genesis 9:20-27)  This “curse,” purportedly illustrated by the color of one’s skin to evangelical Christians, has mostly faded away in modern times; however, it still exists but is NOW generally considered to be non-christian and occult like.  Historically; however, the “curse” inspired such statements as:

Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22.

According to Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, “I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang.”

— From Wikipedia

Unfortunately, the discriminatory use of Biblical text continues and is even popular ideology with regard to homosexuality.  Some comments which claim to hold the word of “God” include:

Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:22-32; 1st Corinthians 6:9,10; Jude 1:7). Let every believer speak out against the evils of homosexuality in society today, for it is our responsibility…

Homosexuality is disgusting, unnatural, and just plain wrong and God hates it.

Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society,but we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment can fit the crime.

Evangelical Christians have been whining about how society is starting to make fun of them and treat them as “less” than human.  They have been calling gay rights advocates terrorists and claiming that they are being threatened with violence.  Frankly, I disagree with threats of violence against the evangelicals; however, there is a little smirking part of me that wants to scream out, “HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE THE TIDE TURNED AGAINST YOU!?!!?”  Michael Novak had this to say:

“There is a bigotry rampant in America, against evangelicals. It is the last respectable bigotry.” (Michael Novak)

So, after centuries of being the “bigot” and discriminating against, enslaving, dehumanizing, murdering and otherwise belittling group upon group of persons, now you want to play the victim card?  Perhaps you are now just reaping what you have sown.

I Don’t Want You to Tolerate Me

February 18, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

I recently read an article from last month posted at the blog, The New Civil Rights Movement titled I Do Not Deserve Your Tolerance.  The premise of the article was that, we [LGBT people] don’t deserve tolerance because, as so wonderfully put by the article, tolerance is something you give to people/things that don’t know any better than to do what they are doing – like a dog that jumps up on you because they are glad to see you.  I made my way through the list of things that the writer “is” or “does” like sorting the recyclables at his apartment or holding the door for other people and saw something in it that made me think of something my mother told me used to exist, chivalry.

That got me to thinking about the gay rights movement of the 2000’s, and more particularly, my feelings toward tolerance.  Generally, I’ve believed that tolerance was good compared to intolerance, but after reading that post, which was much more eloquently put than I could do it, I’ve decided I don’t want mere tolerance, there’s nothing about me that requires tolerance because I don’t affect you – you [anti-gay rights people] are affecting me.  The truth is I have been tolerating “you” my entire life.  I’ve tolerated the fact that you: beat me, insult me, deny me, loathe me, misrepresent me, lie about me and otherwise disenfranchise me.  Chivalry generally means courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.  I’ve always considered myself to be courteous, generous and even at times valiant.  Now that I’ve decided to stop tolerating you, perhaps it is time to learn whether I meet the full definition of chivalrous.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: Gays Attempting to Obtain Privilege Nobody Else is Allowed

February 17, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Stupid Things People Say About Gays

In part 20 of my posts exposing the stupid things people say about gays, we will analyze the following comment as it related to the gay marriage debate:

It’s not about equal rights. It’s about homosexuals obtaining a privilege that nobody else is allowed to have. Colorblind people are expected to accept red as red, green as green, and yellow as yellow. If they don’t have the capacity to see it that way, it’s nobody else’s problem. It’s their lot in life. Nobody is depriving them of their right to see. Same with homosexuals. Hemaun (a 36 y/o vlogger and religious zealot)

First, I’m going to talk about the comment, “It’s about homosexuals obtaining a privilege that nobody else is allowed to have.”  As a long time resident of Texas, USA, Earth, I know with certainty that no one has ever been allowed to marry except the homosexual.  In the United States, homosexuals already receive numerous privileges that are denied to everyone else, like marriage, adoption rights, 401K benefits from a spouse, Social security death benefits, etc…etc…etc…  Those privileges are provided gladly by our government to homosexuals, but no one else… they are exclusive to us. (Note the sarcasm?).  It is relevant to note that same-gender couples can, and often do, “marry” in a religious ceremony sanctioned by the church they attend.  Such is just not recognized by law.  It is the law denying recognition that is at the core of the issue.

Colorblind people are expected to accept red as red, green as green, and yellow as yellow. If they don’t have the capacity to see it that way, it’s nobody else’s problem.”  Wow, how myopic (pun intended).  I’ll have to use that argument against the fundamentalist Christians, that they are like Colorblind people and they just have to accept the fact that their anger, disillusionment, invocation of fear, bigotry and hatred is why the religion is dying.  I find it ironic that he uses such a very poor metaphor to say one group should just accept themselves and not try to force a belief on another when the group in which you are a part has been and continues to do just that!  Again, I say: How many gays have showed up at your door asking you to be gay?