Archive for the ‘ironic’ Category

So today I fully intended a happy fun Christmassy like post then I made the mistake of surfing over to CNN.  I just read the article regarding Obama’s choice for the inaugural invocation.  He has chosen Rick Warren.  Please read the article, the link is below:




God damn it.  I am thoroughly offended by this!  It’s a slap in the face really.  So Linda Douglass is quoted in the article saying, “”“The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues,” Douglass said. “But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”” Obviously, he doesn’t disagree with him enough to find his opposition to gay marriage offensive.  It very well may be true, regarding finding common ground with people who disagree on some issues but I’m not some issue nor are my rights.

What people fail to recognize is that my rights are not a bargaining chip.  It isn’t common ground that should be disagreed on, Obama should be championing for our rights.  I’ve come terms with the concept that gay rights are not number one on the agenda (and I hate to admit it because in my mind gay rights should be a high priority unfortunately it’s not shaping up to be that way).  Fine, let’s fix the economy, let’s get out of this war, but remember there were a ton of gay men and women who voted to put Obama into office then he goes off and makes this kind of choice for invocation.  It’s like a big F*** You!

I love the fact that Linda Douglass defends the choice to saying, ““This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.””  Please, really?  Do you really believe that, as a gay man, I want to go to the inauguration of our President who chose a man, who does not support gay marriage or gay rights, to do the invocation.  Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?  It shows a disconnect with the gay community.

What people don’t understand is the symbolism that his choice holds.  It is symbolic acquiescence to the religious right.  Remember when I posted several months ago and said that I wanted someone in office that would champion rights 100%, this choice shows me Obama’s not the person for it.  I can’t have someone with a luke warm attitude towards my rights in office, and this just shows me that my rights are part of a political agenda.  Instead of standing up for us gays (who many touted with rainbow colored pins with his logo) he chose to try and united political parties, which in my mind was a political move (plain and simple as that).  If Obama can’t see what it means to have this man swear him into office then my biggest fears are being recognized. 

 It just pisses me off to think that Obama chose a man who not only opens supports Prop. 8 but also champions pro-life (for all you ladies out there that are pro choice). 


I decided to take a little spin around Obama’s website and found the following quote from Obama,

While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”


“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us…” well I feel exploited.   


What upsets me is that fact that all my friends were all over Obama.  He had a heavy college aged constituency and I happen to hang out with a lot of college aged people.  I hate the fact that they were upset over the fact that I liked Clinton.  They were stunned that I didn’t jump onto the Obama bandwagon.  But I don’t think they fully understand what its like to compromise your rights for a politician or a political agenda.  I hate the fact that I had a friend tell me Obama was the best that I had at the moment and that I had to look at the greater good for the U.S.  (She meant this in a good way meaning one more advocate in office is better than no advocate at all…ahem McCain/Palin).  Greater good my ass…you see where the greater good is getting me right now.  I’m upset that the gay community was so quick to support Obama.  He was championed so quickly by our community to deliver on gay rights and civil unions (which should be marriages) that now instead of delivering he is more apt. to unite political parties.  It isn’t the fact that the LGBT community supported him that upsets me, it’s the possibility that we could be disappointed by him.  I view my rights as not a political stepping stone.  So when he says he wants to deliver on “equality by treating all citizens with dignity and respect” perhaps he shouldn’t have picked Rick Warren to do the invocation.





I’d like to post script this by saying I can’t fault the gay community for supporting Obama.  It is exciting to think that we might have someone in office that is a champion of gay rights (even though gay rights include marriage and not civil unions).  What I think, though, is that we have to ask a lot of our political people we chose to support.  We can’t just support someone when they say they support gay rights, we need to expect them to follow though.  The reason for this is so that those newspapers, gay community supporters, etc. that endorse, endorse, endorse aren’t shocked when something like this happens.


I’d like to close with this quote from Andrew Sullivan in the article, “[It’s] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.””  It’s a scary quote and I hope he’s wrong, but I have to question is this the start of something, beginning with Rick Warren, that will only serve to disappoint the gay community later down the line?


Read Full Post »

So I’ve been mulling over some of the reasons why the gays in California had their right to marry taken away from them.  On the surface you see California being more liberal in its decisions and view points.  It is home to the Castro District; moreover San Francisco itself is a liberal/gay Mecca.  You have Berkley and so on.  All these free thinking individuals in a state that went blue on Nov. 4th and the gays were still denied had their right to marry taken away.  Not just taken away, the California State Constitution was amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  It’s like taking three giant steps backwards. 


As I was sifting though the numerous quantities of internet information on the passing of Prop 8 I stumbled across several pieces of information that I find to be interesting. 


First, the Mormons siphoned millions upon millions of dollars (upwards around 22 million dollars!!!) into getting Prop 8 passed.  Alright then, if that’s what they wanted then that is what they got.  Now it’s time to hear my terms and conditions for them.  I want to attend your church.  No I don’t want to go though all the hub-bub of becoming a Mormon…no no no.  I just want to be able to walk into their church and participate…including weddings.  I don’t think that’s much to asking.  I mean since they have taken issue with what goes on in my bedroom then I should be able to see what goes on in their churches…and by go on I mean seeing everything.  Somehow deep inside I don’t think they would let me in.  I wonder why?  Why are they so secretive?  Why can’t I come and participate?  More importantly, why did liberal Californians trust them enough to vote with them?  Why is it that people will follow blindly with a group that won’t open the doors to their church to anyone?  Also why do they get to define what “traditional/traditional marriage is?”  If I’m not mistaken they aren’t necessarily the most traditional group ever.  Well let’s just get one thing straight…If you are a mormon I’m judging you.  Yes, I’m judging you and that’s what you get for following a church that got its beliefs from a man (Joseph Smith Jr.) who found your beliefs on gold plates.


The second areas I want to look at are the exit polls regarding Prop 8.  So on a CNN blog they gave the following information on Prop 8 exit polls. (the link will be below)


If the trend holds, younger, first-time voters can be said to be responsible for Proposition 8’s defeat. Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 opposed the proposition 66 percent to 34 percent; voters 30-64 were evenly split; voters 65 and above favored the amendment 57 percent to 43 percent.

First-time voters cast their ballots against the proposition by a 64 percent to 36 percent margin. The rest of the electorate favored the amendment 52 percent to 48 percent.

Californians who attend church weekly voted for Proposition 8 by an 83 percent to 17 percent. Those who attended church occasionally voted 40 percent in favor and 60 percent opposed. Californians who never attend church were 14 percent in favor and 86 percent against.

College graduates opposed Proposition 8 by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin. Those without a college degree favored it, 53 percent to 47 percent.

African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.”


At first looking at this I found nothing to surprising.  I’m not surprised that the educated individuals and the young voters opposed the amendment.  I’m not surprised that those people who attended church regularly supported the amendment.  I mean you eventually get use church goers being blinded and brain washed enough by organized religions to never be able to make decisions for themselves.  Who doesn’t love an antiquated book with a patchwork of stories, the bible, and a priest; aid you in your decision making? **insert sarcasm** 


What did surprise me was how the African Americans voted.  A whopping 69% of African Americans voted for Prop 8.  69%.  I find this particularly upsetting considering their own struggles with civil rights.  I took a Civil Rights course while in college and I found it somewhat comforting to know there were others that had to fight for their rights.  They understood our plight.  Granted it wasn’t nearly the same kind of fight, but we could commiserate to some extent.  Well apparently the African Americans do not feel the same way about us gays.  I think it is particularly hard when a marginalized group attacks another marginalized group.  It stings a little more because the connection that we thought, or at least I thought, shared.  Well now it’s just plain HYPOCRISY! 

I just want you to know that you made history not once but twice election night.  You helped vote into office the first African American President…but…you also took rights away from people too…welcome to the majority.


Finally, to those of you who will read this blog, don’t share my beliefs, and want to comment.  If I find your comment particularly cruel I’ll remove it.  Also, make sure it’s not anonymous and that I’m able to link back to your blog.  There is nothing less appealing than someone who will insult your stance but are to chicken shit to leave a name or their blog.

Read Full Post »

You know I was going to discuss my weekend in OH then I saw this article on cnn.com and it made me sick. (See the link below)






This man in Tennessee goes into a liberal church, which he targeted for being liberal and killed two and wounded seven of the church goers.  Then thinking he would be killed by the police he left a note discussing how liberals and Democrats were causing America to fall into decline, and then he discussed how he did not like “hated” gay people. 


You know what make me so angry about this whole situation is that he believes that liberals are the cause for the decline of America.  This is coming from the person who brought a shot gun to a children’s performance at a church.  His reasoning is skewed and I find it ironic that he blames people like myself for America’s troubles when in actuality it is people like him that are to blame for the problems in America.  Instead of being tolerant of others and allowing for liberal and conservative ideas to co-exist he goes and tries to eliminate the “liberal movement.”


I mean in actuality if one would look at the entire picture they would see the ironic natures of this incident.  The shooting took place at a church, a place of worship and community.  A place where people find solace in times of need, a place where people are TAUGHT TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR etc!  It funny because this guy, I can’t even bare to type his name in this blog because he doesn’t deserve the notoriety of being blogged about, is upset about the decline of American (which I suspect he is thinking about the morality of America) and he is the one that halls off shoots a bunch of people in a church.  It’s ironic that he thinks the liberal agenda is the decline of America; it wasn’t the liberal that brought the gun to church. 


On two final notes, in the article the police say that the man was upset because “the liberal movement was getting more jobs… And he felt like he was being kept out of the loop because of his age.”  I would just like to say that perhaps it wasn’t his age or the liberals keeping him from getting a job, perhaps it was because he was FUCKING NUTS.


Lastly, three of the seven victims that had been shot had come to the church for the first time.  Again, it’s ironic that the shooter touted in his letter that “because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement … he would then target those that had voted them into office.” That’s funny because I find it hard to believe that he would be able to deduce the liberals in that church when voting for governmental positions are done by secret ballot (just because someone goes to a liberal church does not mean they are liberal) and three of his victims were at the church for the first time.


This is sad and upsetting.



Read Full Post »