OBAMA FULL SPEECH: Offers Policy Specifics, Goes on Offense v. McCain

I cannot tell you how amazing this speech was as I watched it with 400 or so Democrats last night at Amsterdam Bar in Atlanta. He even talked about gay rights in a way that made me so proud to be a Democrat.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) addresses the DNC

Hillary Clinton shows why she was such a formidable candidate and why the Democrats' cup raneth over in this year's presidential primary. It was a shame that we had to pick one, but her speech shows the class, character, style, and intelligence that I love about Hillary... and that the Republicans never have understood and never will.

Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) at the DNC

Some of you might have missed Gov. Schweitzer's folksy, fun, and brilliant performance at the DNC unless you are a C-SPAN watching nerd like me :)

Guys like this give me great hope that we can WIN this election despite all the nasty, negative, racist attacks the GOP will continue to throw at us.

What's Up with the Twink Worship?

Many of us have different definitions of what a "twink" is. I did an online search, and I had a heck of a time finding a good definition, although I did find one here. One that made me laugh was from something called "The Jargon File" which said a twink is "gay slang for a cute young thing with nothing upstairs (compare mainstream `chick')." That definition probably comes the closest to what I think of when I think of a twink. Combined with the requirement that you be under the age of 25, as well as having a certain amount of shallow vapidness... I'm not a fan of the twink.

Yet, I find that the gay community is virtually obsessed with them, including guys who would never stand a chance of landing a twink unless he first showed his bank statement. Lately, I've had a slew of friends who have expressed varying degrees of twink worship that I find disturbing. I've never liked the overly skinny mostly because I first felt that I could break them too easily. I'm a relatively strong man, and if I want to give my guy a bear hug, I do not want to have to worry that I'm going to break bones doing it. Then, after I gained weight myself, I had a new reason to dislike the twink: the twink's obvious, public, and utter disdain for my very existence.

I respect people having different things they are attracted to. Lord knows I have my own quirks. One thing I strive never to be, however, is downright rude. The twinks I've run into have made rudeness an art form. Last Thursday night when I was out for my birthday with friends, I was feeling pretty good, and I was smiling and nodding "hello" to anyone to caught my eye. It wasn't a come on; I was genuinely in a great mood and just being friendly. However, I started getting a string of disgusted looks, eye rolls, and heads whipping in the opposite direction that it threatened to sour my evening. And the perpetrators of this behavior were the twinks. Others either politely smiled back, ignored me, or otherwise didn't react - all fine reactions. But acting like I had walked up to them and asked to fuck them in a public toilet was uncalled for....but with twinks, I find it's typical.

Perhaps it is the worship all things young and thin in the gay community that causes twinks to think that they are better than anyone else who is NOT them. I have no idea, and I'm not particularly interested in why they behave the way they do. I do have friends who qualify as twinks who aren't such insufferable assholes, but they seem to be the exception that proves the rule. It's not like these twinks have anything to particularly be proud of. They are young, which is an accident of birth...but time spares none of us. They won't be twinks but a few years. They are skin and bones thin, and look like young boys for the most part....an accident of genetics, drugs like crystal meth, or both. They usually haven't even graduated college if they went at all. Many of them dropped out of school to work full time in retail, figuring that having money to go out and party was more important than an education. And those who are in college have the added irritation of feeling superior in intellect as well as body and looks....and they let you know it. Their favorite hangout is the gay bar or club, and they usually can be found there a majority of nights, even during the week. They sneer at those of us considered to old, too fat, or too WHATEVER to even breathe the same air they breathe. Yet the gay community as a whole worships them, even those who should know better.

Maybe this is what my friends feel when they meet some of the guys I date. Maybe they feel the same sense of frustration, thinking "What in the HELL is going through his head?!?" as they resist the urge to shake some sense into me. I don't know. It just makes me sad when I see great guys who have a lot to offer mindlessly chase twinks for relationships because they somehow fetishize the type. They think the twink they settle on will be different...one of the good ones. They somehow think that the nightly bar hopping, and the lack of a real career or motivation to excel in the one they are in is somehow going to change once they are together. Even when burned, my friends seem not to learn the lesson that perhaps they should expand their horizons a bit and be open to non-obvious attractions. That's a lesson I've had to learn. I have things that I'm heavily attracted to, but I don't limit myself to that. If I click with a guy, I'm open to pursuing that unless there is simply no attraction whatsoever. Sometimes you can't help that...no matter how great the guy, if there is zero interest, there is zero interest.

But the twink worship continues. For my part, I would be happy to let the twinks have their own little fantasy world where everyone can be young, rail thin, and "fabulous" forever going from bar to bar and party to party. Someday they all have to grow up (one hopes), even if that transition is tough for them. I just don't have the patience to deal with the drama and bullshit that twinks dish out. They have no interest in knowing me as a person, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to convince them I'm worth knowing.

I just wish I could convince several of my friends of this....but I fear they may need to get hurt badly (again) in order to learn the lesson.

Why YOU Should Vote Republican

Getting Older Doesn't Have to Suck

I turned 33 years old last Thursday. It still feels weird to say that, let alone type it. I remember when my parents were 33, since I was 8 years old then. That was the year that I started attending Sayre after the disastrous 2^nd and 3^rd grade merger in my public school. I can’t imagine having an 8 year old right now. Shoot, I can’t even find someone to date, let alone someone willing to share my life.

That leads me to the edge of the spiral that I went down in the days before my birthday. I never thought I’d be 33 years old and alone. My plan had been to settle down between ages 25 and 30, then maybe have a kid or two. Being gay did not change this initial plan, just the gender of my spouse. Of course, I never anticipated that I would have such poor judgment when it came to picking men to date. I never knew that I’d have this “rescuer” complex where I try to take on the wounded and troubled in hopes of helping to “fix” them which would result in their undying love and devotion toward me. I never knew that I’d try to settle with a guy that I wasn’t in love with simply because he seemed to “make sense”. So now I find myself at age 33, alone, and with no prospects for that changing anytime soon.

The night before my birthday, I was really wallowing in the self-pity. My dinner that night consisted of a bottle of Amarula, my favorite liqueur from southern Africa. It’s not a heavily alcoholic drink, so I just got a healthy buzz. The thing about alcohol being a depressant is that while it gives you a buzz, it also keeps you down in the dumps. And boy was I depressed about my birthday the next day.

Then my actual birthday arrived. I was determined to feel bad all day about growing older, being alone, being overweight, and having no prospects that things would ever turn around. However, I started getting the legion of happy birthday notes and emails not only from Facebook but through general email. Many weren’t just birthday wishes but some said things like “Sure am glad you were born!” and “I hope you have a fantastic day!” I found it impossible to maintain my bad mood in the face of all this love coming from the greater world around me.

By the afternoon, I even had plans for my birthday night. At first, I had no plans at all, which also contributed to the general “I’m a loser” feeling I had approaching my birthday. My friend John had said that we’d go have dinner, but I hadn’t heard anything else about that. Turns out he forgot, but invited me to tag along on a planned trip to the Botanical Gardens for Cocktails in the Garden. I’d never been, so I decided to accept the invitation. Then I made dinner plans with Daniel, who just got paid, and was in the mood for some hibachi.

Dinner was great, as usual, and I left feeling stuffed. The Garden was nice, but it was HOT as hell. It didn’t really cool down until 8:30pm or so. The cocktails in the park were weak, too. We even had a stalker who followed us around after eavesdropping on the conversation in line.

After the garden, we decided to head to Apres Diem for some real drinks. I had four Hendrick’s martinis, extra dry, with a twist. They were really good. Turns out high quality gin tastes a lot better than the cheap stuff. The conversation was really good, and we definitely decided not to drive home. In fact, we didn’t go home at all, but walked to Blake’s where I proceeded to have 2-3 more gin and tonics.

Turns out I can hold my liquor better than John or Meg, so by the time we got a cab to take us back to their neighborhood in Grant Park, they were both pretty much passed out. We did get Meg in the house, and her sister drove John and I to his house where we crashed.

We awoke about 9am, and had to scramble to figure a way back to our cars. Luckily, Tim was driving to work, and when I told him the situation, he came and picked us up to return us to our cars. I had a presentation at 10:30am on the health plans for McCain and Obama, and I wasn’t feeling it. My head didn’t pound, but I sure did feel nauseated. Luckily, they had water, and I somehow muddled through it. I was a mess, but I didn’t care… my birthday had been a blast!

McCain on LGBT issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

John McCain is such a douche bag.

All Saints ROCKS!

I could not let my last post sit there without a follow-up on what's happened since. The rhetoric was pretty heated, as you read, but it seems to be going in a direction that makes me happy and reaffirms why I am a member of All Saints' Episcopal Church in Atlanta, GA. The first thing that happened was my rector, Geoffrey Hoare+, posted his thoughts on Gay Marriage. This seemed to calm a lot of tempers. What I so admired in Geoffrey's post was his naked confession that he didn't understand bisexuality or bisexuals, and certainly did not understand the transgender...but he concluded that he was open to education on the matter.

The 2nd piece was a letter to the GALAS list from Elizabeth+, the priest assigned to our group. Her letter is printed in its entirety below:

Dear beloved GALAS,

I have remained on the sideline during much of this current conversation. I was present at the retreat during the time that the new mission statement was being formulated. People fell on both sides of the fence as to whether or not GLBT should be included in the statement. At the end of our discussion, it seemed that the entire group felt that this was a good statement to guide our work, not necessarily in terms of who we are now, but more in terms of who we are striving to be as a community.

We are taking a risk with this change and offering radical hospitality. We are expressing to the world that God’s love is offered to everyone and that GALAS in our life and ministry together are intentionally offering a welcome to all who desire to come into our community.

We seek to be a visible and welcoming presence of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ for all people especially the GLBT community of All Saints’.

Last week it was reported that the clergy were against the explicit inclusion of bisexual and transgender persons in the mission statement of GALAS. I could not respond at the time because we had not yet had any sort of discussion about this as a group. During our Program Staff meeting on Tuesday we did discuss the new mission statement and the naming of bisexual and transgender persons in that statement. On behalf of the entire clergy staff I would like to say that we are in support of changes that are inclusive, we are in support of naming all four letters G – L – B – T. We support changes that do not exclude people from community.

This discussion has spurred much passion within the group, for which I am elated to see. I don’t believe that the conversation has come to an end. As we continue to discuss our thoughts and feelings on these and other issues I want to remind everyone of a couple of guidelines. 1) Speak only for yourself. (Yes, using “I” statements) Please do not quote others, whether from casual conversations or sidebar e-mails. Allow them the freedom to choose to engage in the conversation when they are ready. 2) Please remember to be respectful of others, especially those whose opinions differ from yours. This is a conversation, a forum for communication and sharing of ideas, not a battlefield.

Finally a suggestion: If you feel strongly that a GALAS meeting should be held to discuss this issue with one another face-to-face, please e-mail your GALAS chairs directly Jamin Harkness jharkness@wesleyapartments.com and Patty Williams pmw8486@gmail.com so that they can either add this into the fall meeting schedule or if the discussion can not wait until the fall, then to possibly find a time this summer to gather everyone together.

I offer the following prayer for our continued discussion and discernment:

Most loving God, whose will it is for us to give thanks for all things, to fear nothing but the loss of you, and to cast all our care on you who care for us: Preserve us from faithless fears and worldly anxieties, that no clouds of this mortal life may hide from us the light of that love which is immortal, and which you have manifested to us in your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Faithfully,

Elizabeth+

There really is not much more to say. I think that ultimately we will include GLBT in our mission statement, and then get to work on the education piece for ourselves, and the church as a whole.

We Really DO Eat Our Own!

In the last 24 hours or so, my gay group at All Saints has been having a heated conversation. It started innocently enough with a proposed change to our mission statement. Currently, our mission statement reads:

Gays and Lesbians of All Saints' provides a welcome mat for persons of all orientations. We offer an environment for fostering community and reconciling issues important to our faith. Through our regular gatherings, special social events, annual retreat, and educational and service opportunities, our goal is to grow as beloved children of God.

At our annual retreat (which I couldn't attend due to holding the YDG Exec Retreat), the following mission statement change was suggested:

To be a visible and welcoming presence of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ that allows GLBT people to participate fully in the life and ministry Christ within the community of All Saints.

Not a huge deal, right? As a group within All Saints, we have certainly been maturing. We are no longer a group of mostly older gay men who survived the worst days of the AIDS epidemic in Atlanta. We are also generally NOT made up of single people anymore, much to my chagrin. (So I hoped to meet a nice boy at church...who knew that meant I'd first have to break up a happy home?!? Hence, I'm single with no end to that status in sight.) We are chock full of committed couples, and I'd also say that we are certainly in the middle of a "gayby boom" with male and female couples having children all over the place. As our needs change, the group should change.

Who knew that those four little letters would ignite such a controversy? G.L.B.T.

G.L. are no problem. After all, just about all of us are gays or lesbians. It's when we reference those pesky bisexuals and transgender folk that people back up and say "WHOA! Going too far there!"

The opening salvo came from one of our lesbian members:

However, I have some strong feelings about the new mission statement. In particular, the use of GLBT. I think it's confusing and misleading. To include Transgendered in a mission statement for GALAS would lead (albeit uneducated) people to think that transgendered people are gay. I've had a bunch of conversations with people along these lines and you'd be surprised how many people just don't understand what being transgendered means.

I also feel that it's misleading to a transgendered person who would come across it. Sure, we welcome them, but I feel it gives the impression that we in some way champion their cause or represent their issues. And let's be honest - we don't. We are working very hard toward full inclusion of gay people into the church and are taking steps to educate people of gay issues. But none of it has to do with gender identity.

I know this may come across as harsh and exclusive and I don't intend for it to be. I have great sympathy for the struggle of transgendered people, but I just don't feel that it should be included in our statement.

And with that, we were OFF to the races! Personally, I could not believe that we really had people suggesting "Yeah, we'd welcome them, but we certainly won't talk about them!" This from a group of people who largely grew up in churches that explicitly and HARSHLY excluded them for being gay or lesbian. I know I grew up in a church where it was clear that my pastor did not like gays, nor would he tolerate them in his congregation. He also made it perfectly clear that God didn't particularly like me either. It took me years to give church another chance, and I found a place in All Saints that accepted me for who I was, an openly gay man. That was a tremendous gift, and I didn't understand how others would argue we should deny that to others.

The same lesbian came back later to add:

I am not uncomfortable with transgendered people. And I do not wish to exclude anyone. I simply don't see a need to call out transgendered in our mission statement, for the reasons I stated earlier. Everyone is welcome at the table, but we aren't listing transvestites, cross dressers, etc. in our statement either. It's a question of clarity. We are gay people fighting for the inclusion of and education about gay people. Sexual orientation, not gender identity.

If we want to tackle these larger issues, that's a discussion for another day and a mission for a future group.

I wasn't sure how to respond, but I knew I had to. This is what I said:

By specifically excluding T when the popular press and the political world all recognize that we are part of one community (LGBT) is to really have a mission statement who's true meaning is:

To be a visible and welcoming presence of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ that allows gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual, but not those freaky transgender, people to participate fully in the life and ministry Christ within the community of All Saints.

Honestly, how could the underlying message be anything BUT that? It seems we have a strong sentiment that trans people are freaks and undeserving of the love of Christ or being able to participate fully in the life and ministry of of Christ in His Church. Of course, there is same fear that led Barney Frank to exclude the transgender from the Hate Crimes and ENDA legislation. There was a majority for protecting gays and lesbians, but certainly not "those people". But even then, there was a promise that the community would come back later and take care of the Transgendered....here I am not even hearing that. I get the feeling that many of us would simply shun a transgender person who came to All Saints...and for those of us who have grown up with the shame of being gay in the church, been told that God does NOT love us, that we are unworthy of the community of Christ... how do we turn around and do the same thing to the Transgender person, if one was so bold as to step inside our church?

It was the crossdressers and trannies who rioted at Stonewall and launched the gay rights movement, if I have my history correct. Yet here we are being quite explicit about who in our community is and is not worthy of full participation in the community of Christ.

I do not think we have achieved full integration. If we had, then we would not have seen each and every gay or lesbian candidate for vestry voted down since we moved to mail-in ballots. We are integrating, but we have work we need to continue to do...and I think the gayby boom we are seeing in All Saints will help that tremendously, as long as the new parents continue to devote themselves to church service and then stand for election to Vestry.

I would agree with the sentiment below, but I would also add that we are to be a source of education for the rest of the church too, as we connect ourselves with other ministries.

>
> Personally, my interest would be more towards "evangelism." What I
mean by that is there needs to be some mechanism to help gays and
lesbians:
> 1. Know the grace and love of God expressed at All Saints' for
gays and lesbians
> 2. Connect with other gays and lesbians to feel comfortable and
welcome
> 3. Find ways of connecting gays and lesbians into the overall
community and ministries within the rest of All Saints'
>

I think it's good to have this conversation, even if by email. I am not comfortable with transgender issues myself, so I sympathize with the notion of excluding them to protect ourselves...but something inside me says that course of action is just not right. Whether that is simply my conscience or the Holy Spirit nagging at my soul, I cannot say. But the steering committee will follow the will of the membership, whatever that may be.

I got some emails back saying that I was full of anger and falsely attributing things to people who wanted to just name "gay and lesbian" to our group's mission. I thought I was just clarifying things, pointing out what we were REALLY saying by specifically saying we won't touch the trans or bi issue.

Then one of my fellow "Steering Committee" members got into the fun. You have to understand some background of this fellow to fully appreciate his contribution to the discussion. This is a man who has a history of imposing a storyline on his life, or at least TRYING to. The last couple of years since he turned 30, he's been on this kick of being part of a "perfect gay family". He will move heaven and earth to make this a reality too. In the meantime, his partner is in this country illegally, having overstayed his visa after the government turned down his application for permanent residency. They recently adopted a baby girl through open adoption, although how the illegal residency thing was missed by background checks the agency did is beyond me. During the process, this man went through more than a few shortcuts so he could get his child sooner than later. Both men have easy and ready access to recreational drugs (I know that's common in Atlanta, but if you're trying to be the picture perfect gay family, I'd think drugs would not be included), and up until the child arrived, they were ho9lding regular threesomes with God-knows-who and smoking up every chance they got! Now if he weren't trying to play like he's the gay version of "Leave it to Beaver" I wouldn't care less. But it's the hypocritical sanctimony that gets to me. Here was his missive:

Adding the initials “BT,” I believe is inflammatory and will not be received well within the parish. In fact, after a conversation with leadership at All Saints’, I don’t believe it will be accepted by the priests or vestry. Nor do I believe it is our decision to make—that is, adding it to our Mission Statement. I believe we can make recommendations to the leadership/rector/priests/vestry at All Saints’ but GALAS still functions within All Saints’ Episcopal Church and thus it’s internal group’s Mission Statements must be approved. Also, I want to again say I was very comfortable with the original Mission Statement even though I wasn’t even involved, at all, within GALAS at its origin. I think we need to pause and treat this dialogue as our recommendation for a new Mission Statement.

I am all for the process of dialogue and for respectfully sharing our opinions. Personally, I am against adding the “BT,” because again, I think it’s inflammatory and I think we should be cautious as the church is fatigued with these issues. I respect, have considered and acknowledge ’s comments on other issues the church has faced in the past and the results. Adding those initials is not something I am willing to stand up for and push hard for within our church. I believe our parish has taken significant steps already towards our support and yet also feel we are not fully affirmed and included yet.

To that end, my partner and I have respectfully told and requested of Geoffrey that when he and Vestry will stand behind us or “approve,” we want to have our commitment ceremony in the church – at the same altar (or table) as other parishioners. To use Bruce’s words, to be completely affirmed as beloved children of God in our church. Another GALAS member and I were discussing this today and considering that pets can be blessed at All Saints’ but Gay and Lesbian couples cannot. Step by step—true, but I have personally made it known to Geoffrey that my partner and I want to be affirmed as beloved children of God, at the altar, the same as our straight brothers and sisters who I sit beside in the pew at church.

I propose that we approach our dialogue towards refining our Mission Statement as a recommendation to the Rector/Priests and Vestry.

I also acknowledge I do not personally know any transgender people nor understand their issues. Because of that, I’m not personally comfortable adding their initial in our Mission Statement. Thank you for your well written and respectful email on the issue. That email has made me think a lot. Also, I take issue with the concept of bisexuality and believe it inhibits fully committed relationship with another. Because of that, I’m not personally comfortable adding their initial in our Mission Statement.

So, I was left with this apparent backlash by "upstanding, respectable" gays and lesbians against the more flamboyant members of our community. They were going so far as to say that Trans people aren't even MEMBERS of our community. That made me wonder how I could explain that they are. I am certainly not the perfect vessel. I have my own issues of transphobia and just plain not getting it. But I don't think that means I should turn around and suppress them! This is what I came up with:

The question of whether or not transgender people (or even bisexuals) really belong in our community is an interesting one and perhaps at the heart of this mission question. We are an affinity group, so our mission should be narrowly tailored to the community we intend to serve. So that begs the question: are transgender folks a part of our community or not?

Looking at the issue of sexual orientation, it's easy to see how at first blush, one could say "Maybe, maybe not" depending on the transgender person. An MTF (Male to Female) person who was always attracted to men will technically go from gay to straight after full transition. However, an MTF who has always been attracted to women will go from technically straight to gay! I could offer similar examples for women. Would we, therefore, include the MTF who "becomes" gay upon transition and exclude the MTF who "becomes" straight upon transition? Or do we say the question is too confusing, and we're excluding the whole lot?

I've thought a lot in the last day about how a transgender person is and is not part of our community. It goes beyond who that person falls in love with or sleeps with. The more basic question is what could possibly unite G, L, B, and T? Why does society disparage ALL of us? Why do so many in the worldwide church froth at the mouth at
the mere thought that we might be considered beloved children of God?

Biblical translations aside, ultimately, each and every one of us is violating the norms of our born gender. For gays and lesbians, we dare form our primary attachments to members of our SAME gender! Why, I was born a MAN...and everyone KNOWS a man is supposed to be with a woman! I'm spitting in the face of that by admitting I'm gay! Same goes for any lesbian. You and I know that is just how we are born and
wired. We couldn't force ourselves to fall in love with an opposite gender mate than we could survive underwater. The bisexual dabbles in this expression of noncomformity by being quite open to relationships with BOTH sexes.

Where does the Transgender fit into this? A Trans woman is born a man with XY chromosomes, a penis, and testicles. He's supposed to fit into the gender roles of a MAN. There's a problem, though. Everything tells him that he's really a woman, despite the physical evidence to the contrary. So if he comes to terms with that, he will transition into a SHE, and literally cut off the parts that "make" him a man. For society, this is MUCH MUCH worse than our transgression of merely having romantic and sexual relations with members of our own gender. A man that would multilate his own body in order to live as a WOMAN! Imagine it! And then you have a Trans man who is born as a female, and then cuts off her breasts and turns her vagina into a penis! A woman trying to be something she never can...a "real" man!
We will have NONE of that, thank you!

And then you have those in between folks...the ones who are NOT transgender, but who nonetheless have much in common with the transgender in that they live their life displaying characteristics of the opposite gender. By this, I mean the flaming queen who swishes down the street and the bull dyke is often mistaken for a teenage boy. For many of us, we are just as uncomfortable with them as we are with the idea of the transgender. If we decide that trans is certainly NOT a part of our community, do we also say that the flaming queen and the bull dyke really aren't either? If we insist on making room for them, how do we justify saying to the poor transgender person who dares walk into All Saints, "Sorry, we're not here to serve you. Form your own group." The trans person would probably expect that, sadly enough, and likely isn't going to go into church. The statistics on transgender folks are scary...most have no jobs, few friends, and they tend to live on the street. That's why you have so many "tranny hookers". Their suicide rate makes our 30% rate as gay/lesbian youth
look downright low.

We are certainly arguing over something that hasn't happened yet, and I doubt will happen in the near future. Transgender issues are far behind the rest of gay and lesbian rights. Declining to reference them is a conscious choice to exclude them from our mission and our community. The people in the church who would freak out at the mere thought of a bisexual or transgender person would also freak out at the flaming queen and the bull dyke. Most of us at All Saints are pretty mainstream and downright ordinary. As we approach our goal of full integration and equality in the church, should we consciously leave behind the more flamboyant members of our community to "seal the deal"... or do we betray ourselves in doing that?

Our society as a whole has not figured that out yet, but it's certainly underpinning our conversation.

I don't know what the result will be. I feel like I'm wholly ill equipped to make the Trans-inclusive argument, and I certainly understand the feelings of the other side. They sense trouble brewing, or stalling our movement forward in the church, so they are trying to get rid of anyone who might hold our cause of full acceptance back. But it just seems WRONG to do it that way.

I'm open to any thoughts....

Silly Log Cabin

I would think that when reading a tabloid like the Drudge Report, that one would proceed with caution before believing what you read is the gospel truth. Apparently, this is not true if you are a Log Cabin Republican.

Last night, while I was at the AEN meeting on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I fell into conversation with a self proclaimed "gay Republican libertarian". Personally, I thought that Libertarians were different from the GOP, but I'll leave that aside for the moment. In a wide ranging, and enjoyable, conversation about varied topics such as forced sterilization as a condition of receiving welfare (his proposal), his opposition to all marriage, not just gay marriage, and Hillary Clinton's political genius, he tried to sell me on Clinton's homophobia.

Yes, he tried to seriously argue that Bill Clinton was really a homophobe. This guy was from Louisiana, and the Democrats there gay bashed with as much glee as the Republicans. Bill, being an Arkansas boy, just *had* to be a homophobe because he's from the South? And a Democrat to boot? It seemed like he was arguing that southerners all hate homosexuals, including the Democrats, even though they might pretend to like us.

His biggest piece of "evidence" was something he'd read on Drudge. His claim was that Clinton set an expiration date for the non-discrimination order in federal employment where it concerned protections for LGBT workers. This did not seem right to me, but I had nothing with which to disprove his assertion. He claimed that Bush extended the LGBT protections proactively, which seemed patently absurd to me.

I have since discovered what poppycock this claim is. In 1995, Bill Clinton signed an Executive Order which lifted the ban on LGBT people from receiving a security clearance on the ground that being closet cases, they can be easily threatened or blackmailed. On May 28, 1998, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13087 which amended Executive Order 11478, which was the Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government order signed by Richard Nixon on August 8, 1969. The amendment tacked on "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes within federal employment. There was not any sunset provision provided. This amendment was PERMANENT. The thing Bush did was decline to rescind Clinton's order of non-discrimination.

Those silly Log Cabiners....they never learn.

The Things We Learn...

One of the peculiar things about serving as President of the Young Democrats is the knowledge that you must be careful what you blog. I learned that lesson right out of the gate, which explains my unusual quietness on this blog. On political matters, especially, anything I write can have unintended blow-back on the Young Democrats of Georgia. Yes, people understand that you can have separate opinions from stances you must take as a leader, but when you're the titular head of an organization, the caution you must use is magnified. Hence, you have not heard a peep out of me about this year's exciting Democratic primary for President.

That is not going to change, at least until we have a nominee. My only comment will be that we are blessed to have two excellent candidates vying for the nomination this year. Our cup truly runneth over.

Today, I want to reflect on a personal situation and the lessons I've learned from it. I have come to the unmistakable conclusion that I have horrible judgment when it comes to choosing who I want to date. It seems that a cute face and a messed up soul will win me over every time. Yet, this affliction does not carry over into my friendships. My mother has often remarked that I have surrounded myself with really good people as friends. I couldn't agree more. I seem to have a knack (hopefully I'm not jinxing myself here) for picking quality people for friendships. Quite often, I've been pleasantly surprised by the caliber of my friends, especially when hard times hit. I've had a disappointment here and there, but the vast majority of the time, I've been proven to have decent judgment about people.

Not so much when it comes to dating. I have recently completed the drawn-out denouement of a dating relationship that really ended New Years Eve. Yes, it is the end of February, so what was the problem? It's really twofold: he led me on for most of February, and then I just refused to be dumped via TEXT MESSAGE.

I suppose starting at the beginning is best. JHA first contacted me in the search for a missing mutual friend. The friend ended up in the hospital, but that's not important to the story. Turns out the missing friend was partially a ruse. JHA was looking through our mutual friend's facebook page, and apparently thought I was cute. When I was mistakenly told that JHA was a raving Republican, he went with it as a way to meet.

We met on Halloween at Amsterdam Bar. Talk about foreshadowing! We hit it off, and he revealed that the GOP thing was a ruse, and that he was supporting Hillary Clinton for president. By that time, I didn't care because we'd hit it off. He also told me that he was indeed HIV+, which is something he'd hinted at in emails. He only seroconverted last summer, but he seemed quite calm about it and discussed it matter-of-factly. Not an ideal situation for me, but certainly not a deal breaker.

Anyway, romance bloomed, at least on my end of the deal. I honestly don't know anymore if there was anything there for JHA. I started to feel things that I had not felt in almost 10 years. I had honestly wondered if I was capable of feeling that rush of excitement that so often comes with "new love". With JHA, I felt it once again, and it was nice. Almost addicting. Those brain chemicals are pretty sweet.

The relationship never became physical. For those of you who know me, that is probably surprising. This area was the first hint I had that JHA had not dealt with his HIV status as well as I previously thought. He wanted to take things slow, and mentioned "after Christmas" as a good time to revisit defining our relationship more clearly as well as moving on the physical stage. The goo-goo-ga-ga brain chemicals made me completely OK with that. He was spending a couple of nights a week sleeping over, so I didn't have that feeling of alienation that a sexless dating situation would have over time. Besides, I thought that this could last, so why be hasty?

Of course, that was silly of me to think that it would last. First, when he first met some of my friends at Blake's, he went on a crying jag at the bar over the way one of my friends "spoke" to him. Apparently, he felt that he'd been degraded and talked down to. I didn't see it, but I played the dutiful, supportive boyfriend type. He later fled the scene to hang out with his other friends, which ended up being translated into doing cocaine with them. I didn't know this for a week or so until he revealed that he REGULARLY does cocaine, but nothing like he did in college.

I should have fled at this point, but I didn't. I have no idea what I was thinking, honestly. An active cocaine habit? That's not cool. He swore he only did it every 2-3 months, and he didn't deal it (I asked). Things got even more weird around Christmas, when he left me at a Christmas party to hunt down his ex to "collect" $100. I'm not even sure that was real. He refused to discuss past relationships, although he insinuated that his ex had infected him with HIV. JHA was also full of stories about condoms just "breaking" on him all the time. Having quite a bit of experience with condoms, only ONCE has one broke on me, and you definitely know when it's happened. My guess is that in reality, JHA was high on cocaine at his brother's wedding (where he says he was infected with HIV) and barebacked with someone. Maybe his boyfriend at the time, maybe someone else. It was obviously the wrong person if that is indeed where he got infected. Anyway, JHA knew this ex's passwords to banks, email, etc.....and he checked them REGULARLY. Another major warning sign that something was not right.

So high on brain love chemicals, I went merrily along with all of this, and spent a considerable amount of time putting thought into JHA's Christmas gift. We had had a conversation once about his flagging faith, which was mostly tied up in his HIV status. He figured that if God existed, He wouldn't allow HIV to exist. So I found a book written by an HIV+ man and his reflections on God. It's an excellent book, very moving. I also got him a tie and a bow tie because I knew he loved bow ties. His gift to me? He reached in his backseat and grabbed a mixer that was left over from gifts he'd bought his cousins. And yes, he actually TOLD me that.

He met my mother while she was here for Christmas. We had dinner at my place, and it was pleasant. My mother said afterward that she liked JHA better than my last serious relationship because that guy had been all over me like a cheap suit. But she had a word of caution. She told me that every time he spoke to me, he had a little dig. It wasn't major, but it was noticeable. She did not like the way he spoke down at me or the way he always tried to have a little dig at me. She told me that she realized that we both share the trait of wanting to please the men we are with, even to our own detriment. She told me to be careful, and not to take abuse from anyone. I basically ignored these comments, but it turns out that my mother was quite observant and absolutely correct in her observations.

Then came New Years Eve. I admit that I am a bit silly about my NYE superstitions, like if you are with the one you care about at midnight, it is good luck for your relationship the coming year. But I made clear to JHA that this was how I felt about it, even after he told me that was stupid, because he was with his ex last NYE, and that did not last. However, I was supposed to meet him around 11pm at Wild Mustang to ring in the new year. I was at a Young Democrat house party before that, and about an hour before I was to meet up with JHA, he sends me a text message to not meet him. He had been reading the book I got him for Christmas, and he needed space. He SWORE this was not a break-up, but he needed room to evaluate his life and where he was going. He also promised to call me the next day. Needless to say, he has not spoken to me since.

Oh, he'd text message me, and sometimes email. He never called, claiming he'd had to go to the hospital for strep throat. I sincerely doubt that is true. First, even with HIV, you don't have to go to the hospital for strep. Second, if it WAS true, if he were a man of his word, he would have called me as soon as he was able...or at least texted me. He did neither. I had to text him, asking what had changed that he couldn't keep his word. One thing I cannot stand is for people to lie directly to me, and jerk me around.

Of course, I blamed myself for this "break" that he never could define. He claimed he'd stopped smoking, but seeing him later in January at a bar, he was smoking like a chimney as usual. He claimed a lot of things, I have found, few of which turn out to be true. JHA's behavior toward me was that of a person who'd stepped in dog poo and couldn't get it off his shoe. My patience grew thin.

The finale happened on his birthday. This happened to be a day that was pretty stressful for me where several things happened at once. One of the biggest stressors involved YDG, so I didn't want to vent to anyone in the organization. A president needs to keep up his image after all! But that left very few options for me. My mother's job situation had not cleared itself yet, so I didn't want to vent to her. The only person I trusted to vent to was JHA. He'd been helpful in previous situation where I needed a sounding board, so I texted and asked if I could call him. I should have just called.

His answer back was "no". His reason? It was his birthday, and he shouldn't have to "deal with anyone's sh*t" on his birthday. Any other day, he'd be glad to do listen. But not on his birthday, and it was SELFISH of me to even ask. He also used the excuse that he was in his "best friend's" office and couldn't talk. This best friend is someone I think JHA has a real thing for because he talks about him ALL the time, and spends whatever moments he can with him. JHA is not this friend's cup of tea, so nothing is happening there. JHA would probably give his left nut to change that.

In my world, this kind of behavior by JHA is reprehensible and unforgivable. You don't treat people you claim to care about in this manner, even if it is your birthday. Had the shoe been on the other foot, I would have taken the call, realizing that a friend (let alone someone you're supposedly dating, albeit on a "break") would not call me on my birthday unless the need was very real. But I have found that JHA is quite self-absorbed, and his ability to show empathy to anyone is virtually non-existent. He only considers how something affects him. He couldn't care less how it affects someone else.

So I was really hurt, but I did get an opportunity to vent later that evening. I felt much better, but was still pretty stressed, so I went by Amsterdam for their $3 Long Island Tea special. I was reading one of our local gay rags and sipping my drink, when a piece of cake was placed in front of me. This "piece" of cake was whatever was left over because it was mostly icing and was smashed all over the plate. It was also pink. I asked what this was, and the bartender told me, "It's what's left of 's cake. He asked me to give it to you." At this point, I saw him heading out the door with his gaggle of bar friends with a paper tiara on his head.

Here is how I interpreted this "jesture". First, he obviously saw me come in, although I did not see him. He chose to not even say "Hello" or "kiss my a$$", but instead sent me remnants of his birthday cake to show me that he'd: a) had a party, b) not invited me, and c) wanted to be sure I truly understood a) and b). It was a cheap, tacky stunt that was cruel to boot. I have no idea why he wanted to rub my face in his now-obvious contempt for me, but he did. Now I was just pissed. And a little drunk. So I went on a drunk texting/calling binge. JHA always had his phone with him, so I wanted to tell him live what I thought of him. He never picked up or answered my texts. Sober, I'd take the hint, but considering his behavior earlier in the day combined with this latest stunt, I paid no heed that telling him what I thought of him was not going to happen that night. Many of us have been there, and I was embarrassed the next day that I'd done it. I even apologized in an email to him.

That didn't matter. He read me the riot act on email, telling me that I was "obsessed" and "scary". That turned out to be the last real communication I had with him. Right then, I called another friend to go with me to the JJ Dinner the next week. The last thing I wanted to do was spending what should be a fun night with JHA. I did wait until about an hour before we were supposed to meet for JJ and basically texted him the same message he'd texted me on NYE. I figured he deserved a taste of his own medicine. Considering that Hillary Clinton was going to be at the JJ, I hope this disappointed him, but that's probably a pipe dream. He texted back saying that it was OK, and besides, this wasn't going anywhere, so we should "just call it".

Yes, he was trying to dump me for good via TEXT message! I have never encountered something so cowardly and just LOW RENT. How much more trashy can one be? I wrote him back that if we were over, I deserved a hell of a lot better than a text or email. I demanded it. I'm a grown man, and I should be treated like one. You text a trick you never want to see again. Not someone you've dated. Trashy! Just TRASHY!

So we had some terse email exchanges where he went on his kick of "write me at my gmail, not at work". I figured he was just being an a$$ as usual, so I wrote BOTH places. Never in my time knowing him had he ever answered his gmail, so I figured if I needed a response, I had to write work. This, of course, irritated him. I finally got him to agree to a time for us to meet in person, which I intended to be the last time we'd ever speak. JHA had proven himself to a self-absorbed jerk with a cruel streak, and I deserved MUCH better.

Of course, JHA backed out of that meeting too, reitering how creepy I was for my drunk dialing and texting on his birthday. I had nothing more to add, having already acknowledge that I was wrong and apologized. I hadn't behaved like that since the last time I was awash in the brain love chemicals, except now I had the sense to be embarrassed about it later. The last time he'd stayed over, he took a towel and one of my tshirts for the gym, and I told him to just mail them to me. I certainly have no desire to see him.

Since that last email exchange, I have purged him my email, my phone, and even defriended him on Facebook...which you Web 2.0 folks know is the ultimate "You are Dead To Me" statement. LOL!

The message I take home from this, and that I want to share is that when it comes to dating, we often disable our "jerk radar" or "jerkdar". When you have the quality of friends that I do, you need to give those friends permission to grab you by the collar and tell you to RUN AWAY when they see you trying to date someone tragic. Friends will stick by you, and they generally do have your best interests at heart. I know I will try to listen more carefully next time, and empower my friends to intervene early when they see me going merrily down a path of potential emotional destruction. That lesson almost makes the experience with JHA worth it. Almost.

Good morning Governor Beshear!

I am very proud to say that my home state of Kentucky last night emphatically rejected the politics of corruption and hate. Despite a last minute barrage of gay bashing by GOP Governor Ernie Fletcher, Steve Beshear TROUNCED him with 58.7% of the vote.

Surely by now, the GOP must realize that beating up on gays is not the surefire way to win an election. If doesn't work in Kentucky, there are few states where it WILL work (I hope).

Today, I am proud to be a native Kentuckian.

Ernie Fletcher is a PIG

From today's Lexington-Herald Leader, a sign of true desperation of Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher of my home state of Kentucky (http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/222641.html):

Voters across Kentucky received automated calls suggesting the calls came from "the homosexual lobby" and supported Beshear.

"Beshear is receiving major support from out-of-state gay activists and has publicly committed to same-gender relationships, employment of more homosexuals in state government, including teachers, and support for homosexual adoption of children," the calls said. "If you believe these rights are fair, please vote for Steve Beshear for governor."

Darryl Weaver of Lexington called the message "a dirty trick." Allen Phillips, a Shelby County dairy farmer, said he was disgusted to find one of the mysterious calls on his answering machine. Phillips said he already had planned to vote for Beshear, and the call cemented his decision.

"I knew they were going to dip to the bottom of the barrel, but man, I never thought they'd scrape this low," Phillips said.

The calls did not state who paid for them. They suggested that voters visit the Web site of the Fairness Coalition, a Louisville civil-rights group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. The Fairness Coalition's political action committee did endorse Beshear, calling him "tolerant," but the group had nothing to do with the calls, said Darnell Johnson, organizational manager.

"We think the calls are a sad attempt at this late moment to change the vote using a fear tactic," Johnson said.

The Fletcher campaign and the Kentucky Republican Party denied making the calls or knowing who did. The state GOP already has recruited Christian singer Pat Boone to make automated calls accusing Beshear of backing "every homosexual cause" and wanting "Kentucky to be another San Francisco," said party chairman Steve Robertson. In those calls, Boone states who he works for, Robertson said.

This is classic GOP to scapegoat LGBT people when elections aren't going their way. Fletcher is actually touting his history of removing an executive order to prevent discrimination in hiring and firing for LGBT workers. He believes LGBT people in Kentucky have no rights worth protecting or mentioning. He wants to be sure our relationships are destroyed, we are fired from our jobs, and prevented from having children.

This is disgusting. THIS is why the GOP is a clear and present danger to the very lives of LGBT Americans. They are all too willing to gay bash in order to win elections. I am hopeful that Fletcher being 22 points DOWN in the election polls will show up tonight. I am hopeful that Kentuckians will not let gay bashing stand. My home state is often portrayed as backward and stupid. Today, by emphatically throwing the corrupt, immoral Ernie Fletcher out of office, they can make a statement that the stereotype is not true.

A Scary Reaction

Today was going pretty well. For lunch, I decided to go get my allergy shots and then grab a sandwich on the way back to the office. Little did I know, I would not get that far.

At the allergist's office, I signed in as usual and had to wait for this guy who came in before me to finish. I was called in to the nurse's station, asked the usual question of whether I had any reaction after my last shot, to which I honestly answered no. I think I've had one reaction in my life, and it was a severely itchy throat. The adrenaline given to me at that time fixed it. I have been taking allergy shots since 1983 when I first diagnosed with allergies and asthma, so the shots are no big deal to me. They also help with my symptoms.

I get four shots about every 3-4 weeks, two in each arm. There's one for trees and other pollen. There's one for animal dander. There's one for grasses, and a final one for foods. Yeah, I'm allergic to a LOT of stuff.

I got my receipt, and then I went back to the waiting room. The policy is to wait for 30 minutes to be sure that you don't have a reaction. I grew up being told that if a reaction was going to happen, it almost always happened within 20 minutes, so I wait at least 20 minutes before leaving.

Upon sitting in a chair, I was suddenly overcome with nausea, and although I did not know why, I felt I could vomit any moment. I went to the bathroom in the office, and halfway dry heaved twice. Then I started sneezing....and sneezing....and sneezing some more. The nausea passed, but I felt the need to cough. When I did, it felt like a firestorm going on in my upper lungs, and I could almost feel my alveoli closing up with each cough. The alveoli are the air sacs in your lungs where oxygen is transferred to the blood and carbon dioxide released. If those close, you're in serious trouble.

I felt that I was having a reaction, and one look in the mirror confirmed it. My face was bright red, as if my skin was about to spontaneously bleed. The whites of my eyes were red. I knew I needed to get help.

I walked out of the bathroom and went to the nurse's station. No one was there, so I pressed the button that you usually press if a nurse is not present when you arrive for your shots. A nurse was around the corner, and one look at me caused her to say, "Oh shit. Sweetie, come here." She immediately gave me a shot of adrenaline, and then took me in the back to an examining room.

On the way, the allergist was in the hall. He was not my usual allergist, but he was the partner on duty at this particular location today. He was a cool customer. I know why; the last thing you need for a patient having a systemic reaction to his allergy shots is panic. He acted like this happens every day, and asked me what I was feeling while he listened to my chest. A female med student was in the office and she listened to the front of my chest. He had me breathe deeply, and that caused another coughing fit and a round of tightening in my lungs. My cough had a raspy quality to it that almost whistled. He ordered liquid zyrtec, which is an antihistamine, and chewable benedryl. He also ordered another dose of adrenaline along with a nebulizer treatment to open my lungs. I've had those nebulizers before when I've had to go to the hospital with a bad asthma attack.

It was difficult to do the breathing treatment because the medicine was causing me to cough, and I kept sneezing with a running nose. My eyelids felt swollen. I could not breathe out of my nose, and I could not hear. My ears felt swollen and on fire. I could feel pressure building up behind my ear drums, and I had trouble hearing. My face was on fire with flushing. My blood pressure measured at 90/70....I'm not sure if it's EVER been that low. My pulse was 90. I'm not sure how I was not passing out, although the doctor kept asking if I felt light headed or dizzy. I felt slightly light headed, but nothing serious.

The doctor sat on a chair in front of me, talking with me and then explaining everything to the student. Why he asked certain questions, what the answers mean, and what physical symptoms to watch for to be sure the reaction is being controlled. He had another shot of adrenaline, half as strong, given to me again.

The sneezing finally abated, but I kept having to blow my nose. I had a light yellow liquid coming out, which is likely plasma from the increased blood flow. After a few minutes, my nose started to bleed, which was from the expanded blood vessels and the forceful blowing. At this point, my left nostril was completely swollen shut and my right nostril was probably 99% closed. Luckily, my throat was open, and the asthma attack was abated.

I called work to tell them that I was not going to make it back this afternoon, and then I had to call Daniel and Tim to tell them I was not going to be able to go with them to the Emory YD meeting as we'd planned. Even with all the adrenaline in my veins, I was feeling tired already from the ordeal, and I knew when it passed, I would not be worth crap to anyone. I also called my mom to tell her what happened, because I knew if I did not, I'd catch hell later when I told her. We are all the other has in the world, and I know if something happened to her, I want to be told about it as soon as possible.

I had an ice pack to help with the nose bleed, and it felt so good against my still-flushed face. The doctor felt comfortable enough to see other patients and have nurses keep an eye on me by visiting every few minutes. After nearly two hours, I still was slightly flushed, but my eyes were much better, and my face was not nearly as red. My left nostril was still clogged, so he gave me one last dose (1/3 the strength of the first two) of adrenaline to be safe. I was handling the adrenaline pretty well, only shaking slightly. The last shot opened me up all the way, and it made me slightly jittery.

Since I had not eaten, the doctor told me to get food, and that would help with my body metabolizing the adrenaline. I stopped for lunch on the way home, and then went to bed. I could only lightly rest though, because the adrenaline had my heart racing, and my arms were hurting from all the shots.

I'm still tired, and I'm pretty amazed at how QUICKLY the reaction came on, and the severity of it. They asked all kinds of questions to explain how I had a reaction THIS time, when I have always handled the shots well. I had not been drinking, angry, running, excited, or exposed to an allergen in the last day or so. I did not take any aspirin, ibuprofen, or Tylenol. There was nothing to explain why I had the reaction this time. I will be back in about a month for another set of shots, severely decreased I'm sure.

This was a frightening episode, but I find that when faced with a crisis, I become extremely calm. I focus on doing what I need to do at the time, which in this case, was getting help. I do not know why I am like this, but I am quite grateful for it.

The Good Fight

I got an open letter from Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire today. He wrote it to all the LGBT Community, especially those of us in the Episcopal Church. Many have been upset that our bishops did not give the finger to the Global South and tell them to F*ck Themselves with their ultimatum of "repress the gays or else". I felt the communique from the New Orleans meeting was a restatement of the status quo. It appears that +Gene would agree. His letter is excellent, so I'm copying it below. If only the conservatives were able to be so Christ-like, we'd all be better off.

An Open Letter to the LGBT Community
from Bishop Gene Robinson
October 9, 2007

Now that the Church has had some time to absorb and consider the recent meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans and its response to the Anglican Communion, I’d like to share with you what I experienced at the recent House of Bishops meeting, and where I think we are as a result.

There is NO “mind of the House” nor a “mind of the Episcopal Church.” In fact, we are a House and a Church of many different minds. We are in transition from the Church we have been called to be in the past, to the Church we are called to be now and in the future. We are not there yet.

I value highly the thoughts and needs of my brother and sister conservative bishops, who have no intention of leading their flocks out of the Episcopal Church, but come out of dioceses which, for the most part, find the Episcopal Church’s actions of the last four years troublesome and alarming. I listened to them when they voiced the fears of their people that changing our views on homosexuality is a precursor to moving on to denying important tenets of our orthodox faith, from the Trinity to the Resurrection. We worked for a statement which would reflect the diversity we recognize and value as a strength of our Episcopal communion. It was our goal to describe the Church as it currently is: NOT of one mind, but struggling to be of one heart.

My own goal – and that of many bishops – was to do NOTHING at this meeting. That is, our goal, in response to the Primates, was simply to state where we are as an Episcopal Church, not to move us forward or backward. Sometimes, “progress” is to be found in holding the ground we’ve already achieved, when “moving forward” is either untimely or not politically possible. And, doing nothing substantive respects the rightful reminder to us from many in the Senior House that the House of Bishops cannot speak for the whole Church, but rather must wait until all orders of ministry are gathered for its joint deliberations at General Convention.

While many of us worked hard to block B033 and voted against it at General Convention, it IS the most recent declaration of all orders of ministry gathered as a Church. The Bishops merely restated what is, as of the last General Convention.

Yes, we did identify gay and lesbian people as among the group included in those who ‘present a challenge” to the Communion. That comes as a surprise to no one. It is a statement of who we are at the moment. Sad, but true.

Many bishops spoke on behalf of their lgbt members and worked hard to prevent our movement backwards. We fought hard over certain words, certain language. We sidelined some things that truly would have represented a movement backwards.

I want to tell you what I said to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the course of his comments, it seemed to me that the Archbishop was drawing a line between fidelity to our gay and lesbian members, and fidelity to the “process of common discernment,” which he had offered as a prime function of a bishop. I heard him saying that gay and lesbian members of our Church would simply have to wait until there was a consensus in the Communion. When we were invited to respond, I said something like, “Your Grace, I have always respected you as a person and your office, and I always will. But I want you to know and hear, that to me, a gay man and faithful member of this Church, this is one of the most dehumanizing things I’ve heard in a long time, and I will not be party to it. It reminds me of Jesus question ‘Is the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?’ Choosing a process over the lives of human beings and faithful members of this Church is simply unacceptable and unscriptural.” The next morning, the Archbishop tried to assure us that he meant both/and rather than either/or. I tried to speak my truth to him.

On the issue of same sex unions, I argued that our statement be reflective of what is true right now in the Episcopal Church: that while same sex blessings are not officially permitted in most dioceses, they are going on and will continue to go on as an appropriate pastoral response to our gay and lesbian members and their relationships. Earlier versions of our response contained both sides of this truth. I argued to keep both sides of that truth in the final version, providing the clarity asked for by the Primates.

Others made the argument that to state that “a majority of Bishops do not sanction such blessings” implied that a minority do in fact sanction such blessings, and many more take no actions to prevent them. All this without coming right out and saying so. That argument won the day. I think it was a mistake.

Another issue to which I spoke was this notion of “public” versus “private” rites. I pointed out on the floor that our very theology of marriage is based on the communal nature of such a rite. Presumably, the couple has already made commitments to one another privately, or else they would not be seeking Holy Matrimony. What happens in a wedding is that the COMMUNITY is drawn into the relationship – the vows are taken in the presence of that community and the community pledges itself to support the couple in the keeping of their vows. It is, by its very nature, a “public” event – no matter how many or how few people are in attendance. The same goes for our solemn commitments to one another as lgbt couples.

I suspect that these efforts to keep such rites “private” is just another version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” If avoidance of further conflict is the goal, then I can understand it. But if speaking the truth in love is the standard by which we engage in our relationships with the Communion, then no.

Let me also state strongly that I believe that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates MISunderstood us when they stated that they understood that the HOB in fact “declared a ‘moratorium on all such public Rites.’” Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.

Lastly, let me respond to the very real pain in the knowledge that the change we long for takes time. This movement forward is going to take a long time. That doesn’t make it right. It certainly does not make it easy. Dr. King rightly said that “justice delayed is justice denied,” but that didn’t stop him from accepting and applauding incremental advances along the way.

We have every right to be impatient. We MUST keep pushing the Church to do the right thing. We must never let anyone believe that we will be satisfied with anything less than the full affirmation of us and our relationships as children of God.

BUT, I will continue to try to remain realistic in my approach. I work hard, and pray hard, to find the patience to stay at the table as long as it takes. And I hope we can refrain from attacking our ALLIES for not doing enough, soon enough. The bridges we are burning today may turn out to be the bridges we want to cross in the future. Let’s not destroy them.

We need to be in this for the long haul. For us to get overly discouraged when we don’t get all that we want, as fast as we want, seems counterproductive to me. We should never capitulate to less than all God wants for us, but to lose heart when we don’t move fast enough, and to attack the Church we are trying to help redeem, seems counterproductive.

The two days of listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury and some members of the ACC were the two hardest days I’ve had since my consecration. (It was a constant and holy reminder to me of the pain all of YOU continue to experience every day at the hands of a Church which is not yet what it is called to be. Ours is a difficult and transforming task: to continue serving a church that seems to love us less than we love it!) I was comforted by the support I DID receive from those straight bishops who spoke up for us, and especially by many of the Bishops of color, who implicitly “got” what I was trying to say and defied the majority with their support of me and of us. I was even encouraged by many conservative bishops’ willingness to work together to craft a statement we, liberal and conservative alike, could all live with.

I believe with my whole heart that the Spirit is alive and well and living in our Church – even in the House of Bishops. I believe Jesus when he told his disciples, on the night before he died for us, that they were not ready to hear and understand all that he had to teach them – and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. I believe that now is such a moment, when the Church, in its plodding and all-too-slow a way, is being guided into truth about its gay and lesbian members. It took ME 39 years to acknowledge who I was as a gay man and to affirm that I too am considered precious by God. Of course, the very next day after telling my parents, I expected them immediately to catch up to what had taken me 39 years to come to. Mercifully, it has not taken them the same 39 years to do so. The Church family is no different. It is going to take TIME.

I voted “yes” to the HOB statement. I believe it was the best we could do at this time. I am far less committed to being ideologically and unrelentingly pure, and far more interested in the “art of the possible.” Am I totally pleased with our statement? Of course not. Do I wish we could have done more? Absolutely. Can I live with it? Yes, I can. For right now. Until General Convention, which is the appropriate time for us to take up these issues again as a Church, with all orders of ministry present. I am taking to heart the old 60’s slogan, “Don’t whine, organize!”

I am always caught between the vision I believe God has for God’s Church, and the call to stay at the table, in communion with those who disagree with me about that vision – or, as is the case for most bishops, who disagree about the appropriate “timing” for reaching that vision of full inclusion. In this painful meantime, please pray for me as I seek to serve the people of my diocese and you, the community of which I am so honored to be a part.

Your brother in Christ,

+Gene

Pay Attention Gay Voters!

The Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act had to pass out of the US Senate with a filibuster proof 60 votes, mostly because the GOP was determined to kill the bill. To avoid a promised veto by President Bush, the Democrats had to stick into the Defense reauthorization bill as an amendment. Now the President has a choice: Does he hate gay people enough to veto money for his war? We'll soon find out.

For all those Log Cabin Republicans who delude themselves into thinking that the GOP will EVER care for gay Americans, I offer these FACTS from the vote on adding sexual orientation to this nation's hate crimes laws:

Voting yes: 51 of 51 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (100.00%); 9 of 49 Republicans (18.37%)

Voting no: 0 of 51 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (0.00%); 39 of 49 Republicans (79.59%)

Not voting: McCain (R-AZ)

To be fair, and to applaud those FEW, LONELY GOP senators who voted YES to adding sexual orientation to our nation's hate crimes laws, here is the list of the 9:

1. Coleman (R-MN) - tough re-election in 2008 in a gay-friendly state

2. Collins (R-ME) - ditto, but the Maine "sisters" never have been ones to gay bash

3. Gregg (R-NH) - Another one facing a tough re-election in a newly blue state that just legalized gay civil unions that are marriage in everything but name.

4. Lugar (R-IN) - good for him....no reason to vote yes, but did it because it was RIGHT

5. Smith (R-OR) - Generally a good, decent man who has a history of NOT beating up on gay people. Again, tough 2008 re-election in a blue state.

6. Snowe (R-ME) - good for her...stays true to her non-gay bashing past.

7. Specter (R-PA) Good for him too. Ever since reelection, he's been a thorn in the hard right's side.

8. Voinovich (R-OH) - scary re-election in 2008 where gay bashing hasn't done much to keep a corrupt GOP in office.

9. Warner (R-VA) - Retiring, so he can vote his conscience. Good for him!

Notice however, that if the Senator was a DEMOCRAT, he/she voted YES without any dissention. This includes relatively conservative senators like Nelson of Nebraska, and Tester of Idaho. Even Mr. Bathroom Sex himself voted that it was OK to let hatred of gays fuel your rage against them as you beat, maim, and kill gay people, just like what was done to Matthew Shephard nearly 10 years ago. There is no end to the depravity of the GOP closet.

But make no mistake, gay voters. The GOP does not like you. They will NOT support you in your lifetime. They will do WHATEVER they can as a party to suppress your right to live your life unmolested by bigotry, hatred, or violence. It is only that Democratic Party that elects openly gay people to leadership posts and keeps its promises to pass laws banning hate crimes based on sexual orientation, or ENDA to prevent us from being fired for the sole fact of our being gay. The Republicans would never have allowed these to come to a vote.

Remember that EVERY TIME you go into the voting booth.

Young Democrats of Georgia Support Jena 6 Action

(some material adapted from www.colorofchange.org)

The Young Democrats of Georgia want all young people around the state of Georgia to support intervention in the Jena 6 case. This is a situation of great injustice taking place in Jena, Louisiana, a town of 4,000 predominantly white people.

Unfortunately, as at hundreds of other schools across America, black and white students at Jena High School rarely sit together. The white students gather under a big shade tree in the courtyard, while black students congregate near the auditorium.

But last year, a few days into the first semester, a new student, a freshman African American, asked the principal at an assembly, if he, too, could sit under the tree. He was told he could sit anywhere he liked. Three white boys on the rodeo team apparently disagreed. The next morning, there were three nooses in the school’s colors hanging from the “white” shade tree in the courtyard.

The message was clear. "Those nooses meant the KKK, they meant 'Niggers, we're going to kill you, we're going to hang you till you die,'" Casteptla Bailey, a mother of one of the students, told the London Observer. Many in Jena's black community wanted the three white students expelled. But when the white superintendent and other school administrators investigated, they decided the nooses were a prank. Instead of expulsion or arrest, the three received in-school suspension for three days.

A few of the black athletes, the stars of the football team, took the lead in resisting. The day after the nooses were hung, they reportedly organized a silent protest under the tree. The school called in the cops and brought everyone to an assembly to be addressed by the district attorney, Reed Walters. The white kids sat on one side. The black kids on the other side. Walters told the students, “With one stroke of my pen, I can make your life disappear.” The black students said the statement was clearly directed toward them. Walters denies this.

Afterward, some whites felt triumphant; some blacks were resentful. Fights began to break out at the high school. But that year, the football team was having an unusually good season and the black athletes were a major reason why. So while there were fights throughout the fall, nobody wanted to take any action that would hurt the team. When the season was over, so was the truce.

A series of incidents of racially tinged violence occurred:

· Somebody burned down Jena High School. Whites thought blacks were responsible, blacks thought the opposite.

· Robert Bailey, a black kid, was attacked at a predominantly white party, beaten, his head split open by a bottle. The attacker was charged with battery, a misdemeanor.

· The next day, Bailey exchanged words with a white student who had been at the party. The white boy ran back to his truck and pulled out a pistol grip shotgun. Bailey ran after him and wrestled him for the gun. After some scuffling, Bailey and his friends took the gun away and brought it home. Bailey was eventually charged with theft of a firearm, second-degree robbery and disturbing the peace. The white student who pulled the weapon was not charged at all.

· Finally, Justin Barker was over heard bragging in the hallway about Robert Bailey getting his ass beat by a white man. When Justin walked into the court yard he was beaten by six black students. He went to the hospital. His injuries were declared superficial. He was released and went to a school function that night.

The six black students were arrested and charged with aggravated assault. The DA soon upped the charges to Second Degree Attempted Murder.

Six Black Jena High students, Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17), Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16) and an unidentified minor, were expelled from school, arrested and charged with second-degree attempted murder. The difference between assault (misdemeanor) and aggravated assault (felony)? Use of a dangerous weapon. Sort of like the beer bottle cracked over Robert Bailey’s head. The weapon the Jena Six employed? A tennis shoe. The first trial ended last month, and Mychal Bell, who has been in prison since December, was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery (both felonies) by an all-white jury in a trial where his public defender refused to mount any defense at all, instead resting his case immediately after two days of government presentation. A talented athlete, Bell had a real shot at a Division I football scholarship. He now faces up to 22 years in prison. The other five black students await trial on attempted murder charges. This week, conspiracy charges were thrown out against Mychal Bell on a technicality while the district attorney reduced attempted murder charges against two other black co-defendants.

The big shade tree in the courtyard has been chopped into firewood, but the injustice of the Jena 6 continues. There will be a rally in Jena on September 20^th to bring media attention to this injustice.

Join the Young Democrats of Georgia in working to stop racial injustice in America and help turn things around by making it a political liability for the authorities of Jena to continue the racist status quo, and by demanding that the Democratic Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, intervene. Please sign the Blanco petition and donate to the Jena 6 defense fund at http://jena6.vesana.com/takeaction.

Buses will be leaving from Atlanta on September 19^th to attend the September 20^th rally in Jena, Louisiana. The following two contacts are specifically geared toward youth, and costs should be minimal. One is a part of a documentary and the second is sponsored by The Americans for Justice Network, www.americansforjustice.net. Here is the contact info for some of the organizers:

Adrian Williams
tyrone_billboardenterprises@yahoo.com

backonthebusfilm@yahoo.com
678-887-7134
310-709-0256

Jeremy Cormier
Jeremy_cormier@hotmail.com

337-501-9308
Morehouse College
President, AUC Louisiana Club

For more information on this case, please visit here, here, here, here, here and here.

For more information on the Young Democrats of Georgia, please visit www.georgiayds.org.