The Candidates And The Evangelical Preacher

I'm not thrilled that the first presidential debate had McCain and Obama going before a Christian Right preacher. However, I'm even less thrilled that Obama could defend his pro-choice position before this audience, while throwing gay marriage under the bus once again. Yes, he says he favors "civil unions," but he has to know by now that the jury is in on them (New Jersey, for example) and they don't work. This is because civil unions are a second class imitation of full marriage. Companies don't recognize couples in unions like they would have to if they were married. Again, Obama knows this. Why doesn't he have the courage to admit it and at lease say that marriage should be left up to the states if he can't bring himself to do the right thing and support gay marriage or marriage equality outright?

Jim

The California Gay Marriage Battle

Another right wing religious group, the American Family Association, has made a big cash donation of $500,000. to support the anti-gay initiative in California. The gay community in this country had better get cracking to fight to preserve marriage rights in California. There should be a national campaign led by the major gay rights groups. If we lose this battle it will set back the entire gay rights movement by decades. Now is the time to harness the economic clout of gay people behind the battle to defeat the initiative. Where are the leaders of our gay rights groups? They need to join together and make a major unified effort. The clock is ticking.

PHOTO: I planted Dahlias in our deck pots. They really are thriving with all the care I give them.

Read This Before You Buy Bolthouse Farms Products!

From Wikipedia:

"Bolthouse Farms, founded in 1915, is a vertically-integrated farm company located
in California's San Joaquin Valley
and headquartered in Bakersfield,
California. According to the business research company Hoover's, Bolthouse Farms is
one of the United States's leading
producers of carrots.[1] Madison Dearborn
Partners has a 57% stake in Bolthouse that was acquired in 2005, the
remainder of the company is still family-owned. The company has attracted
controversy due to their Conservative Christian political associations and due
to their handling of a botulism outbreak originating from their product."

Anti-Equality Activism
Bakersfield carrot farmer William Bolthouse donated $100,000 to an initiative aiming to fight gay marriage — a measure that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the presidential race. Source: http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/politicsanyone/27751

[edit] Bolthouse Foundation
Bolthouse Farms company profits are used to support the The Bolthouse Foundation[4], which supports groups including Evangelical Christian organizations.[5]
Controversy surrounds the foundation as it, along with figures such as Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince, are major donors for the Alliance Defense Fund that is itself criticized for their perceived legal team offense against Separation of church and state (as defined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), their stance against homosexuality, their focus on proselytism, as well as their opposition to birth control and sex education amongst other reasons.[5][6]
The controversy surrounding the company has led some Bolthouse consumers to boycott Bolthouse Farms products[7]

From the Bolthouse Farms web site:

Corporate Philosophy

The purpose of this Company is to glorify God through our business
transactions, our work, and our relationships. It is further our desire to bring
honor and glory to the Name of Jesus Christ by following God's Word in all of
our dealings with employees, suppliers, and customers. God's Work as contained
in His Inspired Scriptures will be the final authority in all Corporate matters
concerning direction, decisions, and disputes.

Don't Buy Bolthouse Farms Products!

The entrepreneur behind Bolthouse Farms (related carrot brands are Green Giant and Mercer Ranches) is a right wing religious wingnut who has donated $100,000 to support the anti-gay initiative in California that would ban gays and lesbians from marrying. Click on the title above to read the article. Apparently, this bigot is more concerned with fighting gay marriage than sanitation in his own food plants. These products are sold nationwide, so watch what you buy the next time you go shopping!

Jim

PHOTO: The part-shade section of the garden here at Liberty Bell, our beach house on Fire Island

California Same Sex Marriages Will Happen June 17th!

So says the California Supreme Court, in denying the request for a stay of their earlier ruling made by right wing groups and religious bigots. This is a wonderful development and will strengthen the fight against the anti-gay-marriage constitutional initiative. Since out-of-state gay male and lesbian couples will be able to marry in California on or after June 17th, I wonder what our national gay rights organizations will recommend to couples who would like to take advantage of the opportunity to legally marry within the boundries of the United States? It seems to me that a landslide of gay couples pouring into California to marry could be a powerful tool and make a powerful statement on the nationwide battle for marriage equality and gay rights.

Jim

PHOTO: Beautiful Iris in our beach house garden

The California Marriage Battle Is Joined

Long time lesbian activist Robin Tyler over at Huffington:

...a majority of Californians (51 per cent) now supports same-sex marriage!
Only 42 per cent disapprove. But 62 per cent of born-again Christians in
California oppose permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry. I don't mind
these 62 per cent being born again, but why did they have to come back as
themselves?

Tell me about it.

So, Californians will get to vote in November on whether or not to amend their state constitution to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people. Now is the time for the disorganized U.S. gay community to finally band together and flex its muscle. We have no leader, no Martin Luther King. We are not monolithic. Some gays are not in favor of marriage and some feel we're fighting the wrong battles (who really wants to serve in the army anyway?) But this battle in California is so important because if we lose it that could set back the overall gay equality movement by decades. Will we finally come together as gay people to fight the influence of the right and the religious bigots in California?

Jim

PHOTO: More beautiful stained glass in Leon

California Should Ignore Republican Bigots

The Attorney Generals of ten states have asked the California Supreme Court to stay its decision on gay marriages until after the voters have had a chance to ban gay marriages by constitutional amendment in November. The ten AGs are all Republicans. That's no surprise. The attorney general of the state of California, Jerry Brown, has told the court not to issue a stay. Lets hope California listens to Brown and not to the Republican bigots.

Small "d" democracy is not always a good thing. It's not a good thing to submit the rights of a minority to a popular vote. If you have a constitution that guarantees equal rights to all, then the very notion of a constitutional amendment that takes away rights of some should be out of order on its face. You can't have an amendment that goes against the rest of the document, it seems to me.

PHOTO: The spectacular Gothic cathedral in Leon, Spain. Wait until you see some of the beautiful stianed glass!

Jim

Gay Marriage: Some Things Never Change

Erica Jong on gay marriage over at Huffington:

So hurrah for California and Massachusetts. Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic
fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse. It certainly
promotes stability and family. And it's certainly good for kids.
But the truth is the anti-gays don't think rationally. They need their wedge issues to
distract the populace from reality. Anti-gay rhetoric is a useful political
smokescreen. It obscures the fact that the rich are getting richer and that
nobody gives a hoot about the poor. Whenever people get exercised about sex --
suspect the truth: they want to pick your pocket.

Gay Marriage Legal In California

"the California Supreme Court may have created a laboratory to test once and for
all just how powerful this issue really is"

- news analyst Adam Nagourney in the New York Times.

We returned home from Spain (where we could have legally married each other) to the wonderful news that the California Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional. Now we'll have to see if the ruling stands or if the anti-gay marriage forces are able to pass a constitutional amendment which would trump the ruling. To his great credit, the governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger is publicly on record as opposing the amendment. Meanwhile the effect of the ruling on the presidential campaign is being pondered by the pundits. It's too bad that neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton are prepared to do the right thing and support gay marriage. So much for courage and leadership, attributes which once again finish second place to political calculations.

Jim

Is Monogamy The Opposite Of Polygamy?

Here are two definitions to consider:

Monogamy: The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.

Polygamy: The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time, e.g. "plural marriage."

Isn't that strange? You would think that if polygamy is having more than one spouse at a time, then monogamy should mean having one spouse at a time, wouldn't you? However, for some reason, which I suspect has to do with certain social and cultural agendas, polygamy is defined with respect to the number of spouses one has, while monogamy refers to the number of different sexual contacts one has.

I'm confused. Why aren't these two related concepts defined in more similar terms? Do you know? Shouldn't monogamy really be defined as having one spouse at a time? After all, you can be either polygamous or monogamous and yet in addition, be promiscuous, i.e., have sexual contacts outside of your spouse or spouses. It seems to me that we need to clean up the definition of monogamy and de-politicize it. Monogamy should be defined as having one spouse at a time, just as polygmy is defined as having more than one spouse at a time. The correct term for having multiple sexual partners is promiscuity (undiscriminating sexual behavior: behavior characterized by casual and indiscriminate sexual intercourse,) which really has noting to do with monogamy or polygamy.

PHOTO: The "Schuylkill Navy" refers to the rowing associations that maintain boathouses along the Schuylkill River In Philadelphia

Jim

Robbed Of Our Gay Adolescence

Why are so many gay men sexually promiscuous? This question has often been asked and in today's New York Times Magazine there is this explanation:

There was a reason, of course, why so many gay men my age and older seemed
intent on living a protracted adolescence: We had been cheated of our actual
adolescence. While most of our heterosexual peers had experienced, in their teens, socialization around courtship, dating and sexuality, many of us had grown up closeted and fearful, “our most precious and tender feelings rarely validated or reflected back to us by our families and communities,” as Alan Downs, the author of “The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing Up Gay in a Straight Man’s World,” puts it.

So, we who had no sexual adolescence feel compelled to make up for lost tine once we finally come out. It's a powerful argument and quite a revelation I suspect for many men. In my own case, not only was I robbed of my gay adolescence but I also married a woman in my early 20s, so I was robbed of that decade as well. Nevertheless, when I finally came out at age 29 I did not feel the need to "make up for lost time" by racking up a number of sexual conquests. Rather, I went looking for a partner to fall in love with and settle down. So I guess I don't quite fit the mold. But I can see how this could resonate with a lot of gay men.


The article in the Times, entitled "Young Gay Rites" focuses on gay men who get married in their 20s. It certainly is a different world for them than it was for us older gay men. By and large these young gay couples favor absolute monogamy and do not view the sexual and emotional components of their relationships as potentially separate entities as many older gay men do. I was at a cocktail party the other evening with a group of mostly older gays and I tried to make the argument that it is possible to separate out the two as in the case of loving but sexually "open" relationships, but no one would agree with me. Particularly, two younger 30 somethings professed their monogamy in response to my argument.


My own attitudes about monogamy have changed somewhat over the years. How to define monogamy is also something I'm not sure of. Strict monogamy means absolutely no sexual contact with others, I suppose. I think that's a tough standard for many people, both straight and gay. A casual one time contact, or even several with different people, or an occasional three way, are these violations of monogamy? Or, as I am beginning to believe, is an "affair" or a multi-session liaison with the same person that contains both sexual and emotional components what constitutes non-monogamy?


My own behavior actually fits the strict definition for the most part because I have just never felt the need to experiment sexually with a number of different men. I have a loving partner who I enjoy sexually and for those times in between I can look at porn and get off. That's always been enough for me. Come to think if it, porn and self release was enough for me during all of those bleak years of my tortured adolescence, and those years I spent married to a woman. Sure, I yearned for sexual contact with another male, but I never experienced it until my wife left me when I was 29.


I'm glad things are better now for younger gay people. I'm glad that they can come out earlier, date earlier, and marry earlier. They'll experience some of the same problems we all do in life, but at least they won't start out behind the eight ball to the same degree that we older gays did. No one should be robbed of their adolescence. There's no way to make up for that no matter how hard you try.

JIm


PHOTO; The Fire Island Pines Harbor on an early Spring morning

Gay Marriage Takes Two Hits

The Maryland Supreme Court upheld that state's ban on same sex marriages, and in California, Schwarzenegger once again terminates gay marriage, even though the legislature passed it a second time. So, I'll have to continue living in sin with Dan for the time being. No Baltimore nuptials, and no San Francisco wedding on Nob Hill.

Jim

Thompson's Unique Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment

A treat for early risers - The cresent moon and Venus at about 6 Am this morning.

Following up on Marc's remarks about Fred Thompson, I read that he favors a constitutional amendment that would stipulate that states would not have to recognize legitimate same sex marriages that are performed in other states or jurisdictions. How very creative! How very bigoted!

The Log Cabin Republicans are sure going to have a time of it this go around trying to figure out who is the least anti-gay presidential candidate in the Republican field.

Jim

Kucinich YouTube Debate Support For Gay Marriage

Here's one more DRA photo...the dance company is "DARRELL GRAND MOULTRIE" dancing "Trois La Femme."

From the Democratic YouTube debate last evening, this question and answer caught my attention:

COOPER: Our next question is on a topic that got a lot of response from
YouTube viewers. Let's watch.
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Mary.
QUESTION: And
my name is Jen.
QUESTION: And we're from Brooklyn, New York.
If you were
elected president of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each
other?
COOPER: Congressman Kucinich?
KUCINICH: Mary and Jen, the answer to
your question is yes. And let me tell you why.
Because if our Constitution
really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what
it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our
brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender
should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes
the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony.
Yes, I support you. And
welcome to a better and a new America under a President Kucinich
administration.

If only that could happen. Other than Mike Gravel, the rest of the Democrats are opposed to same-sex marriage. My vote will go to a candidate who is courageous enough to support my right to marry my partner. I know I won't be voting for a Republican but I doubt that I will be voting for a Democrat.

Jim

A Democrat I Could Support

Eight years of Bill Clinton's broken promises and cowardly behavior in matters concerning gay rights has left me even more leery of Democrats and the Democratic Party than I was before. I agree with what some African American leaders say about the Democrats: they get lip service from them but little else. Gay and lesbians are even worse off when it comes to the Democratic Party. However, the newly elected governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, has made good on his promise to introduce a gay marriage bill in the state assembly. He knows it won't pass initially, but he's doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do. Hillary, of course, is opposed to gay marriage and has never renounced the hateful "Defense Of Marriage Act" that her husband signed in to law. Too bad Spitzer isn't running for president instead of Hillary.

The photo is of Sufjan Stevens at the Tower Theater in Philadelphia taken last fall. It was a great concert.

My Episcopalian friends are justly proud of their leadership in standing firm against the anti-gay bigotry of the reactionary elements within the Anglican communion. It's interesting to watch this play out. The big disappointment is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has sided with the bigots. He knows better.

I had a brief discussion at dinner the other evening with a friend. The topic was power in relationships. He feels that, in relationships one partner has the most power and the other is "needy." I don't think it's quite that simple. I think a partner that has a lot of power power can be needy, and the "needy" partner can have quite a bit of power. Successful relationships play out over time and lots of interpersonal "territory," and shifting dynamics of power and need.

We're off to the Big Apple today to enjoy the Metropolitan Opera's new production of Puccini's "Il Tritico."

Jim