A while back I did a post on Stephen Bennett, who was begging for money because he said 2007 was a horrible year for him.  It was here that he said:

There have been months we have gone without -- unable to pay simple necessities such as the ministry bills, the mortgage, electric, salaries, and personally doctor's bills. The Lord doesn't want this. We are to be responsible with what He provides and we are. We are frugal with every dime this ministry receives. Yet, as I said, we are at a major crossroad now. We can no longer go on operating the way we have.

He also stated this:

Last year was one of the ministry's most difficult years of all. Many of you who work go to work full-time or part-time and know you are coming home with a paycheck either every week or month. That's not the case here at SBM. In fact, last year, I had to personally take out a home equity loan to cover my salary for several months... or the mortgage wouldn't be paid, nor our children's tuition. I did that because I believe in this ministry more than anything. However, I will never do that again. I shouldn't have to.

I also wrote:

And I'll remind people that in Sept. 2007, when apparently he was mortgaging his home to pay his bills, he bought an SUV.

As reported by Jeremy Hooper at G-A-Y, OneNews said:

“Instead, Bennett's ministry purchased a GMC SUV that will be used to crisscross the nation, transporting a ministry team of former homosexuals who will visit churches and give their testimony of freedom from homosexuality through Christ.”

Well, guess what.  Stephen Bennett finally got around to filing his 2007 taxes (it was received Jan 29, 2009).  And yes, he put the cost of his GMC SUV as an “investment” in his ‘non-profit.’  According to his 2007 tax statement, under ‘automobiles/transportation’, he has listed that the book value of this was $54,647!!!  As I said, Stephen Bennett has listed this in his non-profit as an investment.  And how much did Stephen Bennett and his wife make in 2007 off their non-profit?  Stephen paid himself about 42,000 and Irene paid herself about 24,000.  So together they made 64,000 in 2007 off this non-profit.  But they spent 54,647 on a SUV and ‘transportation’!  His 2006 tax statement does not have this category.  Of course, I don’t know whether Stephen Bennett and his wife work outside this non-profit.  According to their official tax statement, Stephen works 40 hours per week at it, and his wife Irene also works 40 hours a week.  This doesn’t leave much time for other work.  So he was worried about his kid’s tuition and paying the mortgage, but not worried about spending that much for a $55,000 car!!!

Just remember, Stephen Bennett was begging for money because 2007 was a horrible year for them—at least according to him.  He supposedly had to take out an equity loan to survive.  But that didn’t stop him from buying a brand new SUV that apparently cost about $55,000. 

And despite the fact that he was begging for money for his ‘ministry’, his non-profit had nearly $73,000 in unspent money at the end of 2007. 

There is definitely something screwy with the numbers on his tax forms as well.  In his 2006 tax forms he claims that the ‘net assets or fund balances’ at the beginning of the year 2007 was $15,544.  However, he has listed in his 2006 tax forms that ‘net assets or fund balances at the end of the year’ (2006) was $24,987.  I would think that these numbers should be the same.  Maybe I am wrong—I’m not a tax expert…

I haven’t blogged about Ken Hutcherson in a while.  I usually can’t stand to think about him. But he is the ‘minister’ who claimed he was a special envoy for President Bush—but this was a total lie.  I guess this ‘minister’ doesn’t know anything about the Bible.  He does know that it pays his bills.

What has really pissed me off about him this time is what he has to say about President Obama:

"But I guess we...have to ask, 'Even though he is black because his father was, what is his "black experience"?' He doesn't have any. He was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother, so this man has about as much black experience as my Doberman Pinscher -- and I guarantee [that] my Doberman Pinscher doesn't have any," he points out. "There is nothing, nothing that compares between what the Afro-Americans went through and what homosexuals are going through now."

What got this idiot going is that President Obama invited the glbt community into the White House and dared to compare our struggle with the Civil Rights struggle of the 60’s. 

What pisses me off is that I am reading Obama’s Dreams From My Father.  It is such a fantastic book.  President Obama clearly has more brains in his pinky than this fake minister.  I’m sure that President Obama will be hurt and flabbergasted that this fake minister had that to say about him.  If Hutcherson could read, and if he had read Dreams From My Father, he would understand what Obama went through as a black man in the U.S.  Hutcherson owes President Obama a giant apology—of course, if he gave this, I wouldn’t believe it.  Hutcherson runs a scam that makes him money.  He should be ashamed of himself for his lies and what he does for a living.

I’ve been swamped this past couple of weeks with teaching two intensive summer courses (World Civ. I and Western Civ. II).  My Western Civ. II course meets MTWTH 10:35-12:40 and with my other course I feel like I am always either grading or preparing the next set of lectures!  So I haven’t been spending as much time in the garden as I would like.  We also have the yellowjackets under control (they are gone) but the palm tree needs some serious cleaning up, so we’ve started doing that.

Here are the latest pics of the garden.  I thought I would put the before and after shots.

Before:

After:

After:

Our gate we just put up (it isn’t crooked—that is the way I took the pic!).  I also did the router design at the top.  And yes, I know the crossbar is on wrong.  We discovered it once it was all glued and screwed into place…

Before:

Before:

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

Here is the incredible video of President Obama in the celebration of Gay Pride Month.  This happened in the East Room of the White House.  I know that he has been getting some flack about the slowness of change that he promised, but this video is just incredible.  This would never would have happened in the Republican White House.  No way.  So despite the slowness, I really hope that the glbt community will actually become real citizens of this country—not second-class demonized villains. 

Someone came into the yard either last night or sometime this morning when I was teaching and stole Doug’s bike.  Admittedly it has been parked in the back/side yard, in plain view, unlocked for a couple of weeks now.  But we trust that no one will come onto our property and steal things.  I’m not sure why I believe that.  We’ve had tomatoes, lemons, strawberries, roses and God knows what else stolen from the yard.  We’ve got the fences up, but not the gates (well, I have the side gate nearly built but just not up).  I guess that will give us an incentive to get the gates finished. Neither one of us want to build a fortress around the house.  I have too much fun meeting the people in the neighborhood who like to stop and chat about the yard. 

But tonight I put the lawn chairs in the garage as well as the bbq.  I also really hate the idea of someone coming into our yard, next to the house when I don’t know it.  I always keep the doors locked, even when I am in the house.  I’ll just be a bit more paranoid the next coming days.

I also told Doug that it is time we get serious about getting motion-detecting lights. I’ve seen some neat solar-powered ones.  My brother has been trying to convince me to buy a security camera, or at least a webcam that will come on when it detects motion.  I’ve been tempted, but I don’t want to have to worry about it all the time.  We’ve called the police about it and they should be here soon.

The bike is a fairly rare bike for this area—not expensive, but rare because we bought it in Australia and had it shipped over.  Maybe the police can find it and maybe they will apply the Old Testament law about stealing to whoever did it:

Ex. 22:3 "...a thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his debt."

I just noticed this letter at 365gay.com.  We’ll see what kind of response he gets. 

June 15, 2009

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country. You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues. Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

So on behalf of my organization and millions of LGBT people who are smarting in the aftermath of reading that brief, allow me to reintroduce us. You might have heard of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They waited 55 years for the state of California to recognize their legal right to marry. When the California Supreme Court at last recognized that right, the octogenarians became the first couple to marry. Del died after the couple had been legally married for only two months. And about two months later, their fellow Californians voted for Proposition 8.

Across this country, same-sex couples are living the same lives that Phyllis and Del so powerfully represent, and the same lives as you and your wife and daughters. In over 99% of U.S. counties, we are raising children and trying to save for their educations; we are committing to each other emotionally and financially. We are paying taxes, serving on the PTA, struggling to balance work and family, struggling to pass our values on to our children—through church, extended family, and community. Knowing us for who we are—people and families whose needs and contributions are no different from anyone else’s—destroys the arguments set forth in the government’s brief in Smelt. As you read the rest of what I have to say, please judge the brief’s arguments with this standard: would this argument hold water if you acknowledge that Del and Phyllis have contributed as much to their community as their straight neighbors, and that their family is as worthy of respect as your own?

Reading the brief, one is told again and again that same-sex couples are so unlike different-sex couples that unequal treatment makes sense. But the government doesn’t say what makes us different, or unequal, only that our marriages are “new.” The fact that same-sex couples were denied equal rights until recently does not justify denying them now.

For example, the brief seems to adopt the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people:
Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally- recognized form of marriage.

The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else’s marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors’ marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged. In other words, the brief does not even attempt to explain how DOMA is related to any interest, but rather accepts that it is constitutional to attempt to legislate our families out of existence.

The brief characterizes DOMA as “neutral:”
[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage.

DOMA is not “neutral” to a federal employee serving in your administration who is denied equal compensation because she cannot cover her same-sex spouse in her health plan. When a woman must choose between her job and caring for her spouse because they are not covered by the FMLA, DOMA is not “neutral.” DOMA is not a “neutral” policy to the thousands of bi-national same-sex couples who have to choose between family and country because they are considered strangers under our immigration laws. It is not a “neutral” policy toward the minor child of a same-sex couple, who is denied thousands of dollars of surviving mother’s or father’s benefits because his parents are not “spouses” under Social Security law.

Exclusion is not neutrality.

Next, the brief indicates that denying gay people our equal rights saves money:

It is therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges [the government] has afforded to [different-sex marriages] without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize.

The government goes on to say that DOMA reasonably protects other taxpayers from having to subsidize families like ours. The following excerpt explains:

DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.

These arguments completely disregard the fact that LGBT citizens pay taxes ourselves. We contribute into Social Security equally and receive the same statement in the mail every year. But for us, several of the benefits listed in the statement are irrelevant—our spouses and children will never benefit from them. The parent who asserts that her payments into Social Security should ensure her child’s financial future should she die is not seeking a subsidy. The gay White House employee who works as hard as the person in the next office is not seeking a “subsidy” for his partner’s federal health benefits. He is earning the same compensation without receiving it. And the person who cannot even afford to insure her family because the federal government would treat her partner’s benefits as taxable income—she is not seeking a subsidy.

The government again ignores our experiences when it argues that DOMA § 2 does not impair same-sex couples’ right to move freely about our country as other families can:

DOMA does not affect “the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another state, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.”

This example shows the fallacy of that argument: a same-sex couple and their child drives cross- country for a vacation. On the way, they are in a terrible car accident. One partner is rushed into the ICU while the other, and their child, begs to be let in to see her, presenting the signed power of attorney that they carry wherever they go. They are told that only “family” may enter, and the woman dies alone while her spouse waits outside. This family was not “welcome.”

As a matter of constitutional law, some of this brief does not even make sense:

DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits…. Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.

In other words, DOMA does not discriminate against gay people, but rather only provides federal benefits to heterosexuals.

I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages, performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened public policy of th[at] state.”

As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. In the course of your campaign, I became convinced—and I still want to believe—that you do, too. I have seen your administration aspire and achieve. Protecting women from employment discrimination. Insuring millions of children. Enabling stem cell research to go forward. These are powerful achievements. And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough for us?

If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no.

We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.

Sincerely,

Joe Solmonese

We have one large palm tree left in the front yard.  About a month ago we noticed either bees or wasps living in that palm tree.  We trimmed some of the dead branches off the tree, but the bees/wasps didn’t bother us, so we figured they were bees.  But after today, I’m convinced they are wasps.  I was moving some dirt around from a high point to a low point in the front and I noticed a shoot coming up close to the palm tree.  I took a shovel to it and all of a sudden I heard this loud buzzing noise and felt pain at the top of my ear and shoulder.  I left right away and I had been stung.  I figured that if I left them alone they wouldn’t bother me.  But no such luck.  I guess now we are going to have to take the nest down.  Our neighbor Jim said they were wasps and he has been noticing more in his yard.  He gave me a can of spray to get rid of them but we have been holding off.  So tonight we spray and hope that takes care of them.  After getting the fence done I really don’t want to stay out of the yard.  I was also out there this morning planting a bunch of flowers I grew from seed.  I also found a foot and a half long zucchini—I’m not sure how it managed to get past me since I am usually checking the plants.  I’ll probably make zucchini fritters tonight.

A couple of weeks ago I had a discussion with Carlotta at Christocentric.  She seemed to think that gay people have the same rights as anyone else.  I told her that most states in this country actively discriminate against the glbt community, just for being who they are.  Here is proof:

In Wisconsin, the State Assembly just passed a Domestic Partnership registry (which you can read about at Box Turtle Bulletin), which would give glbts the right to visit their partners in hospital, it would allow two partners to jointly own property and allow them inheritance rights.

What this means is that in Wisconsin (unless the Senate passes the bill), partners do not have the right to visit their sick partner in the hospital.  This is barbaric.  Why would any state have this law?  What benefit does the state get by not allowing two private citizens to visit each other in a hospital, especially if one is on his/her deathbed?  What benefit does the state get from not allowing two private citizens to own property together?  And what benefit does the state get for not allowing one person to pass on his/her property at death?

What benefit?  Well, the only benefit I can see is that it caves in to the religious fundamentalists who believe that they are entitled to special rights because they think they are Christian.  That is the only real benefit a state gets from actively discriminating against private citizens who don’t share the same religious beliefs as others. 

I’ve said this before—there is circular reasoning happening here.  The religious fundamentalists say we cannot be families.  And then they turn around to make sure, legally, we cannot be families.  Thus they are correct that we cannot be families because they made it like this.  Fortunately I live in a state where my family, my marriage, is legally recognized.  Unfortunately the State Supreme Court created a special class of people, like myself, that has equal rights compared to straight married people, but left a part of the population behind.

Here is a pretty good video.  The quote below is from the video itself.

Out of Nowhere, a Dance Party


"You have to give this clip a minute, folks. It’s worth it. It's said that one man can change the world. Whether or not that's true, here's proof one man can create a dance party."

Well, it sounds like Donald Trump has done the right thing here.  Luckily the ex-Ms. California was not dumped for her anti-gay marriage views.  She was fired, however, for not keeping to her contract.  It sounds like she is too busy making the anti-gay group rounds to fulfil whatever role she has as Ms. California.

I have a feeling it won’t be the last time we hear of this woman. 

Well, that topic can certainly lead to some interesting conversations and interesting turn of events. 

What is Truth in the Bible?  I say the answer is that it depends on what you believe.  If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then everything in it is truth.  That is, unless you choose to ignore some parts and believe the rest.  The truth may still be there for some who choose to ignore the more controversial aspects, but it is only partial truth if you are only going to believe parts of it.  It isn’t truth if you don’t believe—but this is only partially correct.  I don’t believe, but there are certainly some truths in the Bible—like the Sermon on the Mount.  Did Jesus really speak those words?  I don’t know.  But those words contain truth.

What about accuracy?  Well, I’m not too sure what that means.  Are the words themselves accurate?  Again, it depends on what you believe.  The Bible itself is a compilation of thousands of texts, all put together to form the one text we have.  Some of these thousands are similar or are exact, and some are different.  But people go through these texts, pick what was probably what might have been said or written, and then present it as the most accurate text they can produce.  But that isn’t technically accurate.  However, it is close. 

Are the stories contained in the Bible accurate? Let’s look at a very controversial topic for this week—Abraham and Sarah.  The Mrs. Betty Bower’s video pokes fun at ‘biblical marriage’ by pointing out some problems with the Abraham/Sarah story.  Is Sarah his half-sister and wife?  Is she just his wife?  Is she his niece and wife?  Well, it depends on how far you want to dig into this text.  The wife part isn’t the problem.  But many, many people throughout the centuries have said that Sarah was either his half-sister or his niece.  Mrs. Bowers, a fictional comedian who plays America’s Best Christian, picks up on this problem.  Abraham also has sex with Hagar his wife’s slave.  There isn’t too much debate about this part of the story—clearly he has sex with this slave while married to Sarah.  This is part of his marriage—a marriage as told by the Bible.  Mrs. Bowers picks up on this. 

What about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines.  There doesn’t seem to be too much debate on this—but there you have it, one man married to 700 women as described by the Bible.  Mrs. Bowers picks up on this. 

How about the case of the virgin who is caught in a field by a man who has sex with her—she becomes his wife for 50 shekels.  This is Deut. 22:28-9:  “If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father and she shall become his wife.  Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”

Mrs. Bowers picks up on this as another biblically based marriage—because it clearly is a marriage. 

I could go on and on about the biblical versions of marriage that the fictional Mrs. Bowers brings up in her video—in fact, if you want to see these, watch the video since she also gives the chapter and verse from the bible.  Decide for yourself what is true and accurate—but just beware that there is little that people agree on, even in the simplest sentences in the Bible!

Are these truthful and accurate?  Well, it appears most of them are—at least if you look at the words of the bible.  However, looking at the words leads to discussions, which leads to different interpretations, which leads to new understandings about these words and stories.  Will it affect the fundamentalists who believe that God made marriage one man and one woman?  No.  Why not? Because these are the people who selectively read the Bible. They don’t want to hear about the connection between rape and forced marriage.  They don’t want to hear about Solomon.  They certainly don’t want to hear about Paul and his advice to people—don’t get married.  Will it affect those who want marriage equality for all people?  Well, I don’t know about other people, but I found the video amusing.  This is probably because Mrs. Bowers is amusing and they use some interesting graphics to discuss these stories in the Bible.  But it is comedy and people should lighten up about it.  God knows this video is so much better than the comedy that is put out by the National Organization of Marriage and I would much rather watch a fictional Christian than one that pretends to be a real Christian in real life…

Another good video (and maybe not so controversial as the last one!!!).  I saw this at Pam’s House Blend.

I just saw this hilarious video over at Rob and Justin’s ThePoliticalSpectrum.

 

From the White House:
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA

(I am impressed—now I want to see action!)

Here is a picture of me from middle school—one of my friends put it up on her Facebook page.  It is pretty funny.  And I see I am going to have to have a little talk with my mom about letting me go to school in those pants! However, I do remember being very particular about what I wanted to wear.  And I also remember my favorite pair of pants in third grade—they were red, white and blue plaid!  Who knew I would be ahead of my time in terms of fashion!!!

That is me in the red shirt.  :)

A black, Christian divorced woman said this to me:

“You have missed my point completely Kevin. You don’t have to fight for rights that you already have. But if you should be discriminated because of your homosexuality, I don’t see a problem with that. Why so? Because homosexuality is considered morally offensive to many. Unlike race which involves the color of one’s skin and is morally neutral, the behavior of the gay person isn’t.”

Interesting.  She clearly has been hiding under a Rock (that is a pun—she goes to the Rock Church) and has no clue that any rights that the glbt community have in this country have been fought for.  She fights against the glbt community and is part of the persecutors who have tried their hardest to get rights taken away.  She believes that skin color is morally neutral, therefore discriminating against someone with black skin is wrong.  O.k., but there are lots of other things that have been thought to be immoral and now aren’t. The first is skin color.  It wasn’t so long ago that many, many people thought black people immoral just because of their skin color, and this was the main reason why whites felt they were biblically entitled to own black people.  It wasn’t so long ago that it was immoral for a woman to vote or even have the custody of her children if she got a divorce.  Speaking of divorce, it certainly was immoral not too long ago to get a divorce.  Clearly this black woman would be fine discriminating against black people, against women and against divorced people, which funny enough is her own description.  I suppose you could discriminate against yourself, but I imagine it isn’t pretty.  She also conveniently forgets that religion is a behavior---she chooses to be a Christian.  If she actually thought about that one, she would probably support discriminating against Christians, not to mention all other religions that she isn’t a part of.  If we take this to the end, she really wants everyone discriminated against except of course herself.  Thank god we don’t allow a theocracy in this country. 

And it is hard to believe that anyone could voice their opinion openly that discrimination against any group of people was acceptable. 

I just received the contract to write my book with Praeger Publishers!  I am pretty excited about it.  The manuscript isn’t due until the end of the year, and I don’t know when the publishing date will be after that, but all I have to do is sign the contract, mail it back, and it is a done deal!  I am pretty excited about it.  Now I just need to get the last bits of my dissertation finished and off to the publishers as well.  It should be finished in the next couple of weeks.  I still have to make all the indices and get the bibliography finished.  But the hard work is done.  2010 should be a good year for publishing a few books.

Here is another video from the same person who made the Defender video.  It is all about traditional marriage and how it should be done—according to tradition.  Enjoy!

I just saw this funny (but not so funny) video about those Christians that claim to follow the Bible when they are against marriage.  It might be funny, but as the woman on the video says, ‘majority rules.’ 

This is for all the ex-gays out there (like DL Foster) who pretend to be straight by demonizing the glbt population.  This is also for all those divorced Christians who think they are somehow better than the glbt community, but yet they go directly against the word of God when they get a divorce whenever they feel like it and then pretend to be holier-than-thou.  How many straight marriages would last if they actually followed their Bible?  Not many—especially if you have ‘Christians’ like this woman in red in the video in charge…Enjoy!

The State Supreme Court finding here in California has really energized people.  There is only 600,000 votes that separated the glbt community from getting the right to marry.  Just 600,000.  Now the glbt community is started to campaign in places that overwhelmingly rejected marriage equality.  It shouldn’t be that hard to convince that number of people to see that they should be fighting for everyone’s equal rights, whether they agree with them or not.   

It is certainly working in Rhode Island where 60% of registered voters support marriage equality and a stunning 75% support domestic partnerships.  Republicans don’t want it and neither do those over the age of 70.