jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.

San Antonio, Texas Sees First Transgendered City Council Candidate

March 13, 2009 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News

Ruby Krebs stepped up to run for City Council of San Antonio’s District 1 seat.  Krebs is the first transgendered candidate to run for City Council in San Antonio.  Krebs political career started when she was volunteering for the Hillary Clinton campaign and she now serves as Chair for Precint 4001.

In and interview with QSanantonio.com, Krebs stated she is not running to make a statement about her gender identity:

I know I’m making history, but that’s not the point. I love this city and I know I can do good things for the people of my district.

There are three people running for the District 1 seat.  The Democrat incumbent, Mrs. Mary Alice Cisneros, the challenger, non-partisan (although he has attended Stonewall Democrat events), Mr. Chris Forbrich, who is openly gay and Ms. Ruby Krebs.   District 1 includes areas of San Antonio generally thought to be areas in which gays reside such as Monte Vista, Tobin Hill and King William (home of the fabUloUs King William Fair during Fiesta).

LGBT Advertising Geared Toward Other Minorities?

February 05, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

It seems there is a trend in “pro-gay” advertising that I’m only just starting to notice.  Every photograph or ad I’ve come across lately of a happy same-gender couple, particularly regarding families and adoption, features a multi/bi-racial couple and a minority child.    I can’t help but wonder if this is intentionally targeting other minority groups based upon race or ethnicity, as if saying, “See, we have minorities within our minority.”

The HRC's campaign in California to support same-gender adoption.

The HRC's campaign in California to support same-gender adoption.

Regardless of why, I think it’s a wonderful approach.  I seriously doubt a person who would take issue with a bi-racial couple would be very willing to “accept” a same-gender couple; however, associating ourselves with other minorities may make them take notice.  But have we focused too much on the “Gay is the New Black” campaign?  Have we really “hi-jacked” the civil rights movement as others have claimed:

The way things are going, every day of every month will eventually be a homosexual-inspired event of some kind. Homosexuals seem determined to hijack every day of the year and every historical event in our past. This is absolute nonsense.  — Homosexuals Try To Hijack Civil Rights Movement | From Traditional Family Values site.

Well, I didn’t know the civil rights movement belonged to any one group, but that’s not the point here.  The point here is that LGBT activism must focus on people that are one of the following:

  1. Apathetic homosexuals;
  2. Moderate with slight left or right tendencies; and/or
  3. Other minorities.

At this stage in the game, we must remember not to focus our energies on groups like traditionalists (which makes me wonder how far back in tradition we need to go before they are satisfied), but instead on more moderate groups who can understand the nuances of discrimination, the effects of such and why ending legalized discrimination is important.

A Call to Arms

December 11, 2008 By: jaysays Category: DADT, LGBT News

I’m currently working on a story regarding gay and lesbian people in the military.  If you are a gay or lesbian person currently serving in the U.S. Military under the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (“DADT”) policy, I would love to talk with you.  I can be contacted using the contact form on this site or by a friend request on yahoo- user id is jaysaysdotcom.  Please state in your message that you are contacting me regarding DADT.

I’m also interested in speaking with heterosexuals in the U.S. military regarding their opinions and views of DADT.  Should you choose, your personal information will remain completely confidential.

On another note, I also encourage you to report LGBT discrimination to jaysays.com and let me investigate the claims and demand answers.

Alex Okrent’s Blog: Equality is a Moral Imperative

November 04, 2008 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Marriage Equality

I suppose some would complain that since the election has heated up, I’ve covered too serious of topics, forgetting my ordinarily laugh at the world self and instead substituting for more serious topics (hence the “seriously”).  Well, this post is no exception… seriously.

Some will remember President Elect Obama’s (no I don’t think I’m being too premature) open letter to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community from February 2008.  Reading that letter now, as Obama’s campaign comes to a close and American’s cast their votes, I find myself wondering, “Does he mean it?”  We all remember the promises of Bill Clinton – taking our money and passing laws such as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and “the Defense of Marriage Act.”  We don’t ALL particularly fault Bill Clinton for these measures, but it was certainly a slap in the face to those of us that put  our hearts and money where our mouths were.  Granted, I did not vote for Bill Clinton in his 1992-1996 bid, I was too young to vote – but I was listening, and I was aware.

In the wishy washy game of politics, there’s just no way to know whether or not we will experience the same slap from Barack Obama.  Considering his more recent commentary that he is against “gay marriage,” it looks as though we are set for failure; however, I have a dream, but more than that, I have hope.

To read the full text of Obama’s Open Letter to the LGBT Community, please see Alex Okrent’s Blog at:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Alex Okrent’s Blog: Equality is a Moral Imperative.

Obama’s Plan for America – Equal Rights and Exclusionism

November 03, 2008 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

We all know President George W. Bush has been noted for his antics while intoxicated, be it on alcohol or other substances, but did you know about Obama’s history with narcotics?  Obama, in his book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance wrote:

Junkie.  Pothead.  That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man, Except the highs hadn’t been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was.  Not by then, anyway.  I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.  I had discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl.  …  You might just be bored, or alone.  Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.

Oddly, in all that, I didn’t even pause at the drug use, instead, I was struck by the “club of disaffection.”  That line caught me and held on to my breath for a moment.  I, too, have been welcomed into the club of disaffection – back then I was “hip” rather than worried about breaking a hip.  I bonded deeply at that line with Barack Obama.  The difference was that I wasn’t trying to be black enough or white enough, but trying to forget that the world, generally, loathed the homosexual – or at least felt the homosexual was less of a person than our heterosexual counterparts.

We are the disaffectioned, the blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, atheists, Arab and any number of other minority groups in America, now joined together in the club of disaffection.

But that isn’t the case.  Each of the disaffectioned ones claim our own club with our own colors and, like the affectioned ones, ignore those that aren’t in our club.

That’s where Barack Obama has gone wrong for me.  He has forgotten, in spite of a career based upon civil rights, that civil rights are equal rights for one and all.  That’s not to say I won’t proudly cast my vote tomorrow for Barack Obama – former pothead and future president (nothing new there).  I only hope that in his quest for civil rights, he remembers me as I will always remember him.

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.’ First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me. — Martin Niemöller (Niemoller)

Biden v Palin – Gay Rights?

October 03, 2008 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Marriage Equality

Forgive me if I missed something in last nights Vice Presidential debate.  Did Joe Biden and Madame Palin really say that they were for equal rights for homosexuals but not for redefining marriage?  I fail to see how you can truly have “equal” rights without such “redefining.”  The nuances of the words marriage and redefining can be argued, but truly, making statements effectually stating that it’s ok for gay people to enter into contracts to give them the same rights as heterosexual couples entering into marriage is… well… not equal!

I use terminology here applicable to Texas, some states may call documents by other variations, but they are essentially the same. Lets say I wanted to enter into a “contract” in order to make health care decisions on the part of my partner – assuming he were too ill to make those decisions himself.  This would be a “Medical Power of Attorney.”   In addition to that, I’m going to need access to his bank accounts and other financial records, now I need a “Statutory Durable Power of Attorney.”  You also need a will to pass the property on to your partner should you pass away or vice versa.  Depending on the amount of your assets you can expect to pay between $1,000 – $15,000.00 for an attorney to draft these documents.  Unless you have a large estate, all of these documents can be done away with by getting married.  Texas, being a community property state, allows for the assets of one spouse to pass to the other without a will or in testate (although its a good idea to have one).  Further, no Powers of Attorneys are needed for married couples.  Cost of a marriage license in Bexar County, Texas is $66.00.

Further, should a married couple wish to buy a house or car jointly, there is no need for a formalized contract between the two parties, as such contract already exists as a contract for marriage via the issuance of a marriage certificate.  Should a homosexual couple wish to do the same, it would require a contractual agreement between the parties (one way to do this is to form a business partnership to maintain the assets).  As you can imagine, doing so would be costly.  There are alternative ways, all of which would likely require an attorney and fees for document filing and registration far in excess of $66.00.

We homos have to consider tax issues that married couples don’t.  For example, let’s adopt a baby.  Assuming you live in a state that allows adoption by a gay couple, what does this mean for federal taxation?  Who gets the tax benefit of a dependent as Federal Tax law does not recognize same sex couples?  Assuming you live in a State that allows single people to adopt, who should be the adoptive parent?  Likely, you would answer this question by asking, who would get the largest Federal Tax benefit.  Thus, you would likely need to consult your CPA or other qualified tax professional and again incur additional expenses married couples would not.

Some companies offer domestic partner benefits to their employees.  A wonderful perk, but did you know that your partners health benefits are taxed against you if you utilize those benefits?  Not so for married couples.

There are hundreds of these issues for we the homos that make us separate and distinctly unequal from our heterosexual counterparts under the laws of our states and even under Federal Law.  Each issue builds on the next and each question leads to more questions.  So, how do you fill the gap of equal treatment without redefining marriage?  Some state the answer is through Domestic Partnerships.  Although this is a wonderful compromise and a step in the right direction, it is not an equal right under the law, it is a special right, as marriage is a special right assigned to heterosexuals.

You simply cannot apply equal rights to homosexual couples without redefining marriage to some degree and by redefining marriage, you will then need to redefine divorce.  After all, 100% of divorces in the U.S. directly result from marriage.  For me, no recognization of same sex marriage IS the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere