jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.
Subscribe

Archive for January, 2010

Morning Show’s Transphobic Remarks Should Spark Outrage from the LGBT Community

January 30, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Featured, Thought of the Gay

Janet - Kiss 98.5 FM - WRONG WRONG WRONGJanet Snyder and Nicholas Picholas aren’t exactly superstars to the bulk of the world.  In fact, I’d never heard of them until their morning show which airs in Buffalo, NY on KISS 98.5, took the typically demeaning and irresponsible direction that gets them loads of attention but at a heavy price.

The duo not only belittled the reproductive rights and the right of choice guaranteed by the United States constitution and the historic case Roe v. Wade, but they poked fun of the appearance of a bearded man with a pot belly – and we aren’t talking about Santa Claus or a Nascar fan.  While discussing the “second pregnant man” (being Scott Moore, a pregnant transman), Janet referred to the image of a man with a pregnant belly as “wrong, wrong, wrong.”

Press |> play below to hear the commentary:

[audio:http://www.jaysays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Transphobia.mp3]

All that said, it’s just another crass example of transphobia, right?  It’s not like they said we should murder transpeople, they just said they thought it was, “wrong, wrong, wrong.”  Perhaps that’s why the LGBT community at large has generally ignored the comment? After all, the Facebook group devoted to the issue has only 109 members as of this post.  Perhaps that’s why, three days after the transphobic comments, I’m only just finding out about it in spite of being someone who attempts to stay well informed?

Ironically, before learning of this story, I posted to the jaysays.com page on Facebook the following quote from my favorite American poet, Walt Whitman:

Whoever degrades another degrades me, And whatever is done or said returns at last to me.

I take it personal, in spite of the fact that I am not gender queer or a transperson.  Each and every one of us should take the comments personally, for they are simply the spark that start the fire.  If we do not work together to extinguish these small fires, we are destined to burn everything down.

Please join the facebook group to learn what you can do to help end transhpobia.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 6

January 28, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Headline, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

To begin with, let’s take a brief quiz.  For each statement listed below, answer which person made the statement

By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Same-sex marriage would meet the stated needs and desires of lesbian and gay couples who want to marry. In so doing, it would improve the happiness and well-being of many gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and family members.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

The answer may just surprise you.  All of the above statements were part of David Blackenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage.  Mr. Blackenhorn is an “expert” for the Defendants in the Proposition 8 trial – which means that he is against same-sex marriage in spite of all of the above statements being, in his opinion, true.

Therefore, it seems as though Mr. Blackenhorn would concur with the view that same-sex marriage will significantly benefit many gay couples (as well as many single LGBT people by way of reducing hate crimes and social stigma).  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackenhorn makes an amazing leap of logic from those points.

He then goes on to tell us, by way of his testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case that he believes it is “almost certainly true” that:

…gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit by having gay marriage.

In spite of all this, he does not support same-sex marriage because:

…the rights of gays and lesbians take second place to the needs of an existing social institution. *** I will choose marriage as a public good over the rights and needs of gay and lesbian adults and those same-sex couples who are raising children.

In other words, in spite of the fact that there are enormous benefits of marriage that are currently being denied to same-sex couples and their children, the rights of those people are secondary to those of heterosexual couples simply because same-sex marriage doesn’t provide a benefit to the public… or rather, it isn’t part of the public good.

Mr. Blackenhorn elaborates on what he means by public good, by stating that it, “serves important public purposes.”  By way of his agreements and statements on the benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples, he seems to contradict himself in asserting that such marriages won’t “serve an important public purpose.”

Look back to the quotes above and we can see those things that Mr. Blackenhorn believes don’t serve important public purposes:

  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to have “fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to have a reduction of violent crimes (i.e. “anti-gay hate crimes“).
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to embrace the ideas of “tolerance and inclusion.”
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to “improve the happiness and well-being of many gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and family members.” [emphasis added]

It seems then that Mr. Blackenhorn’s testimony in the trial embraced the following as important public services: (1) to have more children growing up in state institutions; (2) to increase violent crimes; (3) to become intolerant and exclusionary; and (4) to diminish the happiness of a large percentage of American families.

Are those the “family values” they keep telling us about?

o being with, let’s take a brief quiz.  For each statement listed below, answer which person made the statement

By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 5 | Prostituion and Sex with Kids

January 22, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Headline, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Yesterday, William Tam, who previously won a jaysays.com Stupid Things People Say About Gays nod, not only won the title again while be questioned by Attorney Boies, but set the bar to a new level.  During testimony, Tam advised that he thinks legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing prostitution.

Boies: You said that you thought Prop. 8 would lead to legalizing prostitution. Why?

Tam: *** I saw some homosexuals hanging around there. [Regarding “Measure K”, which if passed by voters, would have stopped the enforcement of laws against prostitution in California, among other things.]

Boies: You know that Measure K has nothing to do with Prop. 8.

Tam: Yes.

Nevada legalized prostitution in some incidents (areas with a population under 400,000 people) way back in 1937, but Nevada does not allow same-sex marriage. In Rhode Island, prostitution was considered legal until 2009, but Rhode Island does not allow same-sex marriage.  Rhode Island is also only one of the two New England states that do not allow same-sex marriage (Maine being the other).

Currently, states that allow same-sex marriage include: New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont.  None of the states in the United States that allow same-sex marriage have legalized prostitution.  In fact:

  • New Hampshire made prostitution a crime in Sec. 645:2 NH RSA.
  • Connecticut has about eight sections of its penal code that make prostitution (or acts leading up to prostitution) illegal.
  • Iowa has four laws which prohibit prostitution and/or other sex trade offenses (such as pimping or leasing property for prostitution)
  • Massachusetts, a liberal state and the first state in the United States to recognize gay marriage, has 11 laws on the books dealing with prostitution or related offenses.
  • Vermont, excluding definitions of and the penalties for prostitution or related offenses, has four laws on the books.

It seems like those states that allow same-sex marriage don’t allow prostitution; whereas states that do or did have legalized prostitution recently, don’t allow same-sex marriage.   Sorry Tam – your argument fails.

In his testimony, Tam also stated that legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing sex with children.

Boise: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?

Tam: Yes.

All of the states which currently allow same-sex marriage have set 16 years old as the age of consent (a common age in the United States for “consent”).  Many of those laws have other laws surrounding that age requirement such as the age difference between the parties (thus preventing consensual sex between a 15 year and a 16 year old from being a crime).  No state in the United States has set any age lower than 16 as the age of consent.

But Tam didn’t stop there with his argument that the homosexual agenda will result in legalizing sex with children only he clarified that it’s the “liberal agenda” that’s to blame:

I’m afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.

Our neighbors to the north, Canada, recognize same sex marriage and are generally considered to be a liberal country.  The age of consent throughout Canada is 16, very similar to the United States.  On questioning by Boies, Tam eventually admitted that allowing same-sex marriage in Canada did not result in changes to its law on age of consent.  He denied having any knowledge of what happened to the laws in Europe on consent once same-sex marriage was legalized.

Let’s educate Tam: The age of consent in the Netherlands and Belgium is 16 and Sweden is 15, those are three of the European Countries that allow gay marriage.  The other is Spain.  While it is true that Spain has a very low age of consent (being 13 years old) that law was actually amended in 1999 to increase the age of consent from its previous requirement – 12 years old!

It would seem then that “liberal” doesn’t necessarily equate to sex with children, but much to Tam’s dismay, we can argue that conservative countries do allow sex with children.  Take a look at Saudi Arabia, for example.  Saudi Arabia has no age requirement for consensual sexual activity; however, the law does state that the people who have sex must be married.  Generally, people may marry in Saudi Arabia as soon as they reach puberty – that could potentially be 10 – 11 years old!

There’s also our staunchly Catholic neighbor to the south, Mexico.  The only place in Mexico where same-sex marriage is allowed is in Mexico, D.C.; a very recent development which has caused significant controversy from the citizens.  A very large number of Mexico states have set the age of consent at 12 years old – no gay marriage, but sex with a 12 year old is fine.

Again, “Yes on 8” people seem to make outlandish claims with no supporting facts.    Perhaps it’s because the only book they care to read is the Bible – or perhaps when they read another book they take it out of context, like they do the Bible.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

esterday, William Tam, who previously won a jaysays.com Stupid Things People Say About Gays nod, not only won the title again while be questioned by Attorney Boies, but set the bar to a new level. During testimony, Tam advised that he thinks legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing prostitution.

Boies: You said that you thought Prop. 8 would lead to legalizing prostitution. Why?

Tam: *** I saw some homosexuals hanging around there. [Regarding “Measure K”, which if passed by voters, would have stopped the enforcement of laws against prostitution in California, among other things.]

Boies: You know that Measure K has nothing to do with Prop. 8.

Tam: Yes.

Nevada legalized prostitution in some incidents (areas with a population under 400,000 people) way back in 1937, but Nevada does not allow same-sex marriage. In Rhode Island, prostitution was considered legal until 2009, but Rhode Island does not allow same-sex marriage. Rhode Island is also only one of the two New England states that do not allow same-sex marriage (Maine being the other).

Currently, states that allow same-sex marriage include: New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. None of the states in the United States that allow same-sex marriage have legalized prostitution. In fact:

§ New Hampshire made prostitution a crime in Sec. 645:2 NH RSA.

§ Connecticut has about eight sections of its penal code that make prostitution (or acts leading up to prostitution) illegal.

§ Iowa has four laws which prohibit prostitution and/or other sex trade offenses (such as pimping or leasing property for prostitution)

§ Massachusetts, a liberal state and the first state in the United States to recognize gay marriage, has 11 laws on the books dealing with prostitution or related offenses.

§ Vermont, excluding definitions of and the penalties for prostitution or related offenses, has four laws on the books.

It seems like those states that allow same-sex marriage don’t allow prostitution; whereas states that do or did have legalized prostitution recently, don’t allow same-sex marriage. Sorry Tam – your argument fails.

In his testimony, Tam also stated that legalizing gay marriage would result in legalizing sex with children.

Boise: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That’s the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?

Tam: Yes.

All of the states which currently allow same-sex marriage have set 16 years old as the age of consent (a common age in the United States for “consent”). Many of those laws have other laws surrounding that age requirement such as the age difference between the parties (thus preventing consensual sex between a 15 year and a 16 year old from being a crime). No state in the United States has set any age lower than 16 as the age of consent.

But Tam didn’t stop there with his argument that the homosexual agenda will result in legalizing sex with children only he clarified that it’s the “liberal agenda” that’s to blame:

“I’m afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.”

Our neighbors to the north, Canada, recognize same sex marriage and are generally considered to be a liberal country. The age of consent throughout Canada is 16, very similar to the United States. On questioning by Boies, Tam eventually admitted that allowing same-sex marriage in Canada did not result in changes to its law on age of consent. He denied having any knowledge of what happened to the laws in Europe on consent once same-sex marriage was legalized.

Let’s educate Tam: The age of consent in the Netherlands and Belgium is 16 and Sweden is 15, those are three of the European Countries that allow gay marriage. The other is Spain. While it is true that Spain has a very low age of consent (being 13 years old) that law was actually amended in 1999 to increase the age of consent from its previous requirement – 12 years old!

It would seem then that “liberal” doesn’t necessarily equate to sex with children, but much to Tam’s dismay, we can argue that conservative countries do allow sex with children. Take a look at Saudi Arabia, for example. Saudi Arabia has no age requirement for consensual sexual activity; however, the law does state that the people who have sex must be married. Generally, people may marry in Saudi Arabia as soon as they reach puberty – that could potentially be 10 – 11 years old!

There’s also our staunchly Catholic neighbor to the south, Mexico. The only place in Mexico where same-sex marriage is allowed is in Mexico, D.C.; a very recent development which has caused significant controversy from the citizens. A very large number of Mexico states have set the age of consent at 12 years old – no gay marriage, but sex with a 12 year old is fine.

Again, “Yes on 8” people seem to make outlandish claims with no supporting facts. Perhaps it’s because the only book they care to read is the Bible – or perhaps when they read another book they take it out of context, like they do the Bible.

Mr. Gay China Pageant Shut Down by Police.

January 15, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Discrimination, Headline, LGBT News

Google China Mr. Gay China Pageant Shut Down by PolicePolice in China shut down the Mr. Gay China Pageant in Beijing an hour before the event was to start.  Organizers planned the event to select a contestant for the Worldwide Mr. Gay Pageant to be held in Norway next month.  The pageant is said to be the first of its kind in China and was to feature a fashion show, a question and answer session and a host in drag.

Professor Zhang Beichuan of Qingdao University had said, before the show was canceled, that:

…it reflects a more open and tolerant attitude of the country toward the gay community to host such an event.

In fact, before the show was canceled, many others weighed in on the effect and meaning of such a pageant in China, which only decriminalized homosexuality in 1997:

Eight Chinese men will strut their stuff in front of hundreds of people Friday at China’s first gay pageant, in a sign of new openness about homosexuality in a nation where it remains largely taboo. – Marianne Barriaux (AFP)

I believe most people will support us though I’m ready for a storm of criticism too. – Contestant, Steven Zhang

When the eight finalists of the first Mr. Gay China pageant strut the catwalk of a Beijing club this Friday, they’ll be doing something that was once unthinkable in a country where gay sex was illegal until 1997 and homosexuality was classed as a mental illness until 2001. – Jane Yager

The hope and dreams of what this pageant would mean in a country such as China, and the resulting closure of the pageant indicate that, while there may be no laws against homosexuality, LGBT people in China still suffer at the hands of a tyranny – but in spite of the stories turning up on the internet, you won’t see the story of police shutting down the pageant on google.cn now (click for screen shot) – or perhaps you won’t see anything from google.cn if China doesn’t stop the censoring.

Discrimination of this nature is nothing new for China, or many other countries in the world.  For example, the organizers of China’s Gay Pride Festival were told to cancel two of their events last June or face “severe consequences.”

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 4 – The $ Game

January 14, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Many of the ridiculous arguments being used by those that support discriminatory laws banning marriage between two consenting adults based solely on the gender of those adults don’t apply specifically to the “gayness”; however, those arguments have been created solely to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and therefore seem to qualify as things being said about gays.

On Day 4 of the Proposition 8 trial, the Defendants (those opposed to same-sex marriage) attempted to make the Plaintiffs’ expert, San Francisco’s Chief Economist, Edwin A Egan, say that allowing gay marriage will increase the costs to the city.  The theory of the Defense being that clerks will be required to use their time to issue marriage licenses to more people and print more marriage licenses increasing paper and ink costs.

This argument not only fails at “common sense”, but also fails economically speaking, because there is a fee to obtain a marriage license in California (as pointed out by Egan).  That fee covers the costs associated with the clerk’s time, printing and other such expenses that would otherwise be borne by the city.

Let’s review, just in case we don’t know how much time/money would be required to issue a marriage license. Here are a few points that those stretching their imagination to prove that gay marriage will cost the city more money should consider:

  • A marriage license is a one page document.
  • 50 pages of nice quality “certificate” paper is about $10.00 (about $0.20 per page).
  • A high yield, rather expensive, black toner cartridge costs about $60.75 and will print approximately 7,000 pages (give or take depending on density) – that’s less than $0.01 per page, but will bulk it up to the full penny for this argument.
  • According to my local county clerk’s office, if I were to come with the completed marriage license application in hand, all required documentation and the correct fee, the total time required to have the license issued will not exceed 15 – 20 minutes (minus my time spent in line should there be one).
  • The median salary for a county clerk in the United states is $27,300.00.  But for this one, we need to make some assumptions: we will increase that median by 20% due to the high standard of living in California (particularly San Francisco);  assuming that the Clerk has worked for the city for some time and has a lot of education and experience to back them up, we’ll increase the salary another 10%.  In that case, our hypothetical clerk makes $36,036.00 per year – roughly $18.77 per hour.
  • At $18.77 per hour, the cost in salary for the clerk to spend 15 – 20 minutes issuing a marriage license would be approximately $6.26 (on the upper end).
  • Making another assumption to inflate the numbers even further in favor of those that oppose same-sex marriage, let’s assume the clerk must spend an additional 15 minutes scanning and properly filing the marriage license, that’s about another $4.70 cents to pay the Clerk – for a grand total of $10.96 being paid to the clerk for issuing one marriage license.
  • The fee that a couple must pay to have a public marriage license issued in San Francisco is $93.00.

At this point, the argument they make starts to get very boring in trying to disprove them – why?  Because it’s obvious there is no logical argument in the “money” game.  Gay marriage = money to the city and local businesses through marriage tourism.

Crunching those numbers further though, the total cost to the cityfor the issuance of one marriage license would be approximately $11.17 indicating that, when the City of San Fransisco issues one marriage license, it’s profit is approximately $81.83.

All that being said, how much should our government stand to profit before it gives full, legal recognition to all citizens?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

LGBT Lessons for Straight People: The Quota System for the Right to Marry

January 14, 2010 By: geekgirl Category: Featured, LGBT Lessons for Straight People

Like many others, I have been following reports from the courtroom of Judge Walker. I’ve really appreciated the highly detailed reporting at Empty Wheel from Fire Dog Lake.

I could not help but be both bewildered and intrigued by the line of questioning regarding the percentage of straight relationships and gay relationships that are stable, the percentage of couples that want to be monogamous and how long these relationships last. Even more odd, the defense attorney wanted to compare relationships in domestic partnerships compared to marriage. So, the anti-gay marriage crowd wants proof that gay people want to be married, will stay married and will stay monogamous. That’s going to be tricky IF YOU DON’T LET THEM GET MARRIED.

Sorry. I had to get that point about the twisted logic out of my system.

Are we going to apply this same standard to heterosexual couples? Are we now going to legislate whether or not to grant marriage based on how long people stay married? Because if we are, a 50% divorce rate is a failing grade in any class I ever took.

Are we now going to legislate whether or not to grant marriage based on the number of people that want to get married? “Sorry gays, we need for 99% of you to want to get married, stay married and promise to be monogamous, or we won’t give you the right to marry.” Will we have this same quota system for straight couples?

Monogamy? The line of questioning contains a section about a study that shows that not all gay men want to be monogamous. First, the studies are very old. Second, the gay men mentioned having open relationships.  Hmm, so the gay men who answered this study, twenty years ago, were being honest with their partners? We straight people have a better method. It’s called cheating. In other words, adultery. You know, that act that right wing conservatives always seem to be caught in. Mark Sanford? Hiram Monserrate, State Senator of New York? Can someone please tell me the last time somebody went to jail for adultery? Are there even laws against it anymore? Oh yes. Biblical law, right there in the Big Ten Commandments. Yet, that one seems to be ignored by groups like National Organization for Marriage, a well known anti-gay marriage group.

Straight people decide if they want to get married. If you are above the age required in your state and meet the requirement for however biologically unrelated you need to be (i.e. not first cousins), you can get married. No one asks if you intend to be monogamous. No one asks how long you plan to stay married. No one asks why you want to get married. There’s no training, no test. It’s a whole lot easier than adopting a dog from a shelter. Just fill out the paperwork, wait a few days, get married. No church required.

None of  these standards have ever been applied to heterosexual marriage. A 50 percent divorce rate could be an excellent argument for getting rid of marriage all together. Yet, somehow, I think straight people would be up in arms if anyone suggested this.

If only one gay couple wants to marry, that is enough for me. If that couple wants an open relationship with others, that is their business and theirs alone. If one cheats, that is their business and theirs alone.

If their relationship doesn’t last, how is that the government’s business? Britney Spears was married for less than three days. If the government can process a marriage and a divorce in three days, why is it taking 40 years to give same sex couples the right to marry?

jaysays.com contributor geekgirlgeekgirl: Jude, the author of this post, is a straight woman, a mom and has been married for 32 years to the same wonderful man. She believes in Buddhism and attends the United Church of Christ. She is a molecular biologist, her best friend is a lesbian, and she believes that every human deserves equal rights, respect and a life free from hate, fear and discrimination. The only thing she hates is pickles. Her science blog can be found at LGBT Latest Science.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 3

January 13, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart took the stage in the Proposition 8 trial this afternoon with a redirect examination of Yale Professor Chauncey.  During the examination, Ms. Stewart asked Professor Chauncey to read from a Vatican statement regarding same-sex marriage.  These are the words of the Vatican:

Allowing children being adopted by gay couples would do violence to these children.  Their condition of dependency would stunt their full human development.

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 million and 10 million children are currently being raised in gay and lesbian families.  Some studies indicate that an estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting children.  If all of those interested were able to adopt children and did so, homes would be had for TWO MILLION homeless or orphaned children.  That’s a lot of kids.

Further, an estimated 4% of all adopted children in the United States are adopted by gay or lesbian parents.  Considering numerous states in the U.S. have laws against such adoption, imagine the flood of homes that could be provided should all states recognize same-sex marriage and cease discriminating against same-sex couples during adoptions.  The social benefit would be overwhelming.

Of course, the issue raised by the Vatican is that the 8 – 10 million children that are being raised by gay or lesbian parents have been stunted from reaching their full human development.  This argument has the same ugly ring to it as the argument recently made by a Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple because he is concerned for the welfare of their offspring since interracial children are not accepted by society.  Apparently, this Justice of the Peace is wholly unaware of the United States President’s ethnicity.

Of course, we all know that Ally Sheedy turned out terribly.  The actress didn’t live up to her potential at all thanks to her lesbian mother, Charlote.  In fact, her youth was so wasted, that she didn’t start performing until the age of 15!!!  Had her mother been a heterosexual, perhaps things would have been better for Ally and she would have started performing at a very young age, as did Jon-Benet Ramsey, the child of heterosexual parents.

We also know from history that King Charles I of England didn’t live up to his potential either.  After all, he was only King of England, not like he became “Pope” or something more wholesome.  Perhaps had his father and grandfather not been “queer” he would have gone on to be Emperor of the World instead of just “King of England.”

And lets not forget Curtis Jackson.  We all know that he was completely stiffled from growing up and living a productive life.  I for one am not going to tell him that he hasn’t fully developed as a human, though.  Of course, the Vatican may not be familiar with the name Curtis Jackson – perhaps we should tell them his more commonly known name, 50 Cent (or as I like to call him, silver change).  What would have become of 50 Cent if he had heterosexual parents?  Perhaps he would have become a country-western singer instead, eh?

There is some truth to what the Vatican argues – history does show us that the children of gay and lesbian people often suffer a terrible fate.

For example, Alexander Aegus, the son of Alexander the Great, was murdered by Cassader… by the Vatican’s standard, this was because of his homo-dad, not a struggle for power.

There’s also the late, great Dorothy Dandridge, whose life was so tragically cut short by an accidental overdose of Imipramine at only 42 years old.  This is obviously a result of her mother having been a lesbian.

The point here isn’t that children of LGBT people are better than children of straight people.  The point is that the children, like all children, develop independently of their parent’s sexual orientation, some for better, some for worse.  There is no correlation between greatness and parental sexual orientation.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

God has Spoken… to me

January 12, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Featured, Thought of the Gay

Atheists for JesusAs many regular readers know, I’m an atheist; therefore, when I say this, please don’t take it lightly.  It was after much contemplation that I decided to go public with this very personal moment in my life. Tonight, I spent many hours in the kitchen working on making some candy.  It’s a long process and messy – so the clean up often takes as long as the making.  Thereafter, I was a bit tired and stepped outside for some fresh air.  I began thinking hard about things in the world – the economy, marriage equality, the criminal trial against the cop that beat Duanna Johnson, and other things relevant.

It was then that God spoke to me.  I’m not sure why I was chosen, but after much consideration, there is no logical explaination for what occured other than it was the voice of God.  While it isn’t freezing outside, it is chilly; however, a warm wash came over me and I began to see a light – slowly growing brighter and brighter.  Then the voice came through, clear and in English (not some weird tongue).  At these moments, one would expect something extraordinarily profound, perhaps even a burning bush or two, but that was not the experience at all.  Instead, it was simply a kind, warm voice.  God spoke only one word, “Now.”

Either God wished to promote the National Organization for Women, or there is a message in that word.  I haven’t discovered the message yet, but I hope to.

Now…

All that being said, I now wonder how many of you are thinking, “Jay has lost his mind.”  If that is what you are thinking, you may be right – or perhaps, I’m destined to become a prophet…

or perhaps, I’m lying.

How would you know if God spoke to me?  You’d simply have to take my word for it, wouldn’t you?  Just like we take the word of Moses, or the word of Joseph Smith who founded the Mormon Church a scant 180 years ago, or even the word of Maggie Gallagher, the founder of the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage.

So why don’t you believe me?

Of course, God didn’t speak to me.  God has never spoken his word to my ears.  I’m either not worthy, or there is no God.  But those that fight hard against same-sex couple and invoke his words likely haven’t spoken to God either.  In fact, any that claim a direct link to God would likely either be considered “crazy” or a “liar”.  What changed in the past 180 years since the founding of the Mormon church that made us stop believing that humans can speak directly to God or angels?

I suppose the right wing would argue that the gays are to blame for that, too.

Goodnight, and God speed… or is that speak.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 2

January 12, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Yesterday, the judge and lawyers assembled in the courtroom at 8:24 a.m. Pacific Time to debate, and ultimately decide, upon the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  The case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, resulted after a “majority” of California voters decided that the judicial granting of equal marital rights to same-sex couples violated their sense of… uhm… of… well, ego.

Since the trial started (and even before) we’ve heard the opponent’s of equality claiming that the majority spoke and such majority rule must be honored.  In fact, the news keeps repeating an annoying little phrase whenever they talk about the case, referring to Proposition 8 as a “voter approved” measure.  Unless the manipulation of the vote allegations are true, then “voter approved” measure and “majority rule” are correct terms to use when referring to Proposition 8.  It is true that a small majority of voters decided to approve a measure that would stop recognizing a civil institution for some of the population.

Those that voted in favor of Proposition 8 have been bemoaning activists against the discriminatory measure and argue that, in a Democracy, majority rules.  Opponents of Proposition 8 retorted that majority rule over a minority results in tyranny (among other things), and that if majority had ruled with respect to interracial marriage, 90% of Americans would have denied the right based solely upon the race of those wishing to enter into marriage.  In other words, Barack Obama, being a mixed race man, would not be allowed to marry Michelle Obama, being that she is not mixed race if “majority” had ruled rather than the Supreme Court (presuming, of course, our President even came to being).

But that’s just a little clarification to bring us up to date.  The majority spoke again last week with regard to the televising of Proposition 8.  In fact, according to the Courage Campaign, 138,574 people, at Judge Vaughn Walker’s request, provided their vote with respect to the televising of the trial.  Of the 138,574 votes, 138,542 supported the trial being televised, 32 opposed.  (Note: The “for” votes do not include those that sent letters or called outside of the petition hosted by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action, thus the numbers “for” televising the trial are likely substantially higher).

Those that have been arguing for majority rule lost… BIG TIME.  Unfortunately, in spite of this loss, the trial is not being televised.  The losers (those not in the majority) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the televising of the trial.  The Court is set to rule tomorrow based upon the law – not the “majority opinion.”  Oh the hypocrisy.

So, today’s stupid thing people say about gays is, “majority rule.”  While not specific to LGBTQ people – it certainly is applicable in this instance.

[Another Note: The column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays (of which this post is part of) uses the term “Gay” inclusively.  It’s always been so and will always be so.  jaysays.com and all of its contributors strive to be fully inclusive and leave no freak behind.  More Stupid Things People Say About Gays can be found here.]

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 1

January 09, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

The trial that may repeal the disgustingly discriminatory Proposition 8 in California (which denies couples of the same sex from entering into the civil contract of marriage) begins January 11, 2010.  With that trial will come many “stupid things” that people say about gays.  The opposition will be presenting their ridiculous arguments (including one where they claim gay marriage will result in children having sexual fantasies about their same-sex friends).  Thus, it’s a proper time to start the Proposition 8 Series for Stupid Things People Say About Gays.

Let’s get things started (even before the trial begins): Hak-Shing William Tam intervened in the much talked about Perry v. Schwarzenegger case as an official litigant to defend Proposition 8 and continue to oppress same-sex couples.  After doing so, a sad thing purportedly happened, Tam’s family began receiving threats and had property vandalized.

Although I completely understand the urge to beat the living hell out of those that oppress any people, I disagree with actually doing it.  However, that’s a discussion for another time and place – we have to get to the stupid things people say about gays before I run out of typing space.

On Friday, Tam appeared in court and advised the justice:

Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase. [emphasis added]

It sucks, doesn’t it Tam – to feel that people are targeting you and your family because you believe differently than they do or because you feel differently than they do?  It’s a sad way to have to live your life.  No one should ever feel their family is in danger because of their political opinions or social class.

In fact, I shouldn’t have to feel that way either.  Unfortunately, I’ve felt that way the bulk of my life. I can recall very specific situations where my sexual orientation has nearly killed me.  I can recall each and ever death threat, each hate email, and more particularly I recall the day I discovered the word “FAG” scrawled in the paint of my car door.  I live with that fear every day because of people like you who think you deserve more than I deserve.

Now, please accept my most sarcastic apology if your tyrannical behavior has caused you to feel, even for such a brief period of time, the way you  and those like you have made me feel since I was a young, scared little “sissy” boy.  But there is a key difference in what is happening to you and what has happened to me.  You have put yourself out there to attack and oppress a group of people; whereas, I just came out as a gay man.

Oh, and did I mention that Tam is the one making the claim that the kids will fantasize about their same-sex friends?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.