Lez Keep It Real

“Snooooooop.”

You have to hand it to the Doggy Dog, he knows how to make a club banger. And this little pearl of wisdom could be applied to other aspects of life, not just in the club.

When I say “drop it like it’s hot,” I’m obviously talking about that lump sticking out behind you. When Rep. Barney Frank says it, he’s talking about the Presidential race for 2008.

(more…)

So said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in “The Running Man.”

You remember that movie, don’t you? It was loosely based on the novel Stephen King wrote. Schwarzenegger was a prisoner of war for a crime he didn’t commit and thus thrust into the limelight of a futuristic game show in which criminals were put into outrageous life or death situations against heroic gladiator types for the world to see. The entire premise of the movie is not out of the realm of possibility. That’s the scary part.

The ironic part is that Schwarzenegger’s character was completely against government and politics. And now he’s the Governor of California.

Interesting to say the least.

When you think about it though, navigating politics is a means of survival. Gay, lesbian and transgendered people are constantly trying to live their lives in the best way they can despite the disparity that exists between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the political landscape.

Gov. Schwarzenegger isn’t just acting anymore. He’s making political decisions that affect every GLBT individual in the state of California. And it looks as though he’s making a good one for once.

Governator To Fight Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

(San Diego, California) California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he’s prepared to fight it.

California’s governor spoke Friday in San Diego at the convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest gay Republican group.

He has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. Both times Schwarzenegger said that the courts or the people through a plebiscite should decide the issue.

The California Supreme Court took up same-sex marriage earlier this year. A decision by the court is expected by June 5th.

Conservative groups, supported by many California Republicans, are working to gather signatures to put a same-sex marriage constitutional ban on the November ballot.

Schwarzenegger said he was confident a ban would never pass in California and called the effort “a waste of time.”

Schwarzenegger’s remarks came during a public discussion with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon about the future of the Republican Party.

Sammon asked the Governor whether he would oppose the effort to ban same-sex marriage.

Schwarzenegger replied: “First of all, I think that it [the marriage ban] will never happen in California. I think that California people are much further along on that issue. And, number two, I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.” READ MORE

I have to applaud his actions here and I agree with his statement that people are much further along on the gay marriage issue. But not just in California. This kind of statement is being made throughout all parts of the country. Many conscious-minded individuals are asking the same question — what’s the point? Get over it.

Like the infamous action hero he once was, The “Governator” is looking this issue dead in the eye and saying, “Gay Marriage Ban … you won’t be back.”

I have a funny feeling that there won’t be a sequel.

For more brilliant Schwarzenegger quotes, go here.

arnold schwarzenegger, stephen king, the running man, gay marriage ban, log cabin republicans

Is it so wrong that a decorated military official who achieved accolade after accolade turned out to be gay?

According to the military it is:

The Washington Blade ~ A Wikipedia article about Maj. Alan Rogers, a gay soldier who was killed in January in Iraq, was apparently edited by someone in the Pentagon, who removed any mention that Rogers was gay.

The user on Monday redacted details about Rogers that appeared on the online encyclopedia site. Information that was deleted included Rogers’ sexual orientation; the soldier’s participation in American Veterans for Equal Rights, a group that works to change military policy toward gays; and the fact that Rogers’ death helped bring the U.S. military’s casualty toll in Iraq to 4,000.

Rob Pilaud, a patent agent and a friend of Rogers who attended the soldier’s funeral, restored the information to the Wikipedia article the next day. Pilaud was among Rogers’ friends who created the Wikipedia page.

The anonymous poster also provided the following comment in the “discussion” section about the article:

“Alan’s life was not about his sexual orientation but rather about the body of work he performed ministering to others and helping the defense of the country,” the poster wrote. “Quit trying to press an agenda that Alan wouldn’t have wanted made public just to suit your own ends.”

The IP address attached to the deletion of the details and the posted comments is 141.116.168.135. The address belongs to a computer from the office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G-2) at the Pentagon. The office is headed by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, who was present at Rogers’ funeral and presented the flag from Rogers’ coffin to his cousin, Cathy Long.

The Army’s public affairs office did not return a call seeking comment. READ MORE

If you aren’t familiar with Rogers, here’s a brief summary from Wikipedia:

Major Alan Greg Rogers (September 21, 1967 – January 27, 2008) was an ordained pastor, a US Army Major and Intelligence Officer, a civil rights activist in the gay, lesbian and bisexual military community and the first known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The subsequent coverage of his death in the media sparked a debate over the effect of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy and what information should be included in the biography of a gay military person killed in action.

Why does it have to be a secret? Like it or not, being gay is part of who Major Alan Glen Rogers was. Keeping that fact hidden is misleading to Americans and disrespectful to him.

What’s the big deal any way? Why would the military go to such great lengths to keep Rogers’ sexuality a secret? I have a guess.

Could it be because if word got out that people in the military can be successful and achieve greatness regardless of his or her sexual orientation, the military would have no ground on which to base their ludicrous theory that homosexuality is a threat to national security?

Could it be that success stories such as these in which a military official is proven to be a tremendous leader amongst his or her peers regardless of his or her sexual orientation may eventually help overturn “Don’t ask, don’t tell?”

I think so.

This kind of thing gets me so heated. When are we going to accept the fact that sexuality has no bearing on the way in which a person pulls a trigger on a machine gun?

The military knows that it doesn’t matter. And the truth is that they don’t care who takes the bullet or who fires the missile. They just don’t want America to become comfortable with gays, because once that happens it will become a non-issue. And stories about war heroes who happen to be gay won’t help their cause in painting homosexuality as debilitating and harmful.

That is why these kind of stories are the ones that need to be heard the most.

the washington blade, major alan glen rogers, don’t ask don’t tell

Or so the military thinks.

Seriously. Aren’t there more pressing issues for the military to address than this?

(more…)

1) They don’t know the difference between separation of church and state … or gay people and terrorists for that matter.

2) Even the few you believe in or trust are shady mother crunchers.

AP NEW YORK — As Gov. Eliot Spitzer faced mounting calls to resign amid a prostitution scandal,
a law enforcement official said Tuesday that the governor first came under suspicion because of cash payments from several bank accounts to an account operated by a call-girl ring. Spitzer was the initial target of the investigation and was tracked using court-ordered wiretaps that appear to have recorded him arranging for a prostitute to meet him at a Washington hotel in mid-February, the official said.

I e-mailed my father the above video and said, “This is the kind of rhetoric that scares me, because it isn’t just anybody saying it — it’s a lawmaker.”

He responded with, “What do you expect from a politician?”

I responded with, “Exactly. See Spitzer.”

I won’t repeat what he said after that.

I feel so bad for his wife. She looked as though she had been punched in the stomach in every photo taken during Spitzer’s (put out the fire quickly) press conference. Even when he apologized, I didn’t feel as though he regretted his actions. He didn’t speak off the cuff, he memorized a few statements and regurgitated them on cue.

I honestly believe that if he hadn’t been caught, he’d still be big pimpin’.

Seriously though, I expect more from those we elect into lawmaking positions. I mean, come on. I know that everyone isn’t perfect. We all have vices and skeletons in our closets. But people in these types of positions are held to a higher standard. They have to be in order for them to be able to enact political policies that are fair and just, as well as morally sound. I really wonder if and when you get to a certain status in the political sphere, you are required to check your morals at the door. If that’s the case, then I don’t want to run for office anymore. I’d rather spend my time in the rolling hills of Scotland, writing and enjoying the view from afar.

Anybody want to come with me?

elliot spitzer, gays are terrorists, kerns speech about gays, spitzer prostitution

Well, I have to give it to her. Hillary isn’t going out with out a fight. She won Ohio and Texas, which would have clinched the democratic nomination for Obama had he won.

Meanwhile, McCain sailed through easily. And Huckabee dropped out. No surprise there.

So, here we have it. Hillary and Obama will continue to trade barbs while McCain is free and clear to concentrate on the task at hand. I’m no political analyst here, but I can’t help but wonder if this will hurt the democratic party overall. With no clear frontrunner, people are still torn between one candidate and the other. If they get frustrated enough with Obama and Clinton’s propensity to fight like little school girls, they may just jump the track and hop on the McCain train. Because right now he’s going full speed ahead.

I will say this though, I’ve never been all that into politics. But this year’s Presidential race is unlike any other. I feel as though there is so much at stake. Whomever takes the reigns over from Bush is going to have a lot on his or her plate. Bush dug us so deep into a hole of economic sludge that it’s going to take more than Hillary’s claws, Obama’s charisma or McCain’s military savvy to get us out.

I know I seem hard on Hillary sometimes. I’ll admit it, she’s not my favorite person in the world. But I watched Saturday Night Live on Saturday and saw the opening sketch. It was hilarious. And when the shot cut to her live, I was impressed. She actually made me laugh. Whether she was playing to a certain demographic or not, I think it takes a lot of guts to do that. She won me over just a tid bit.

Before I let you bloggity bloggin’ readers outta here, I have to apologize for my absence yesterday. I was still recovering from being sick. But I’m back and feeling much better. So I can promise you some friendly and witty banter over the next couple of posts.

Until tomorrow …

hillary clinton, barack obama, john mccain, mike huckabee, presidential election 2008, hillary wins texas and ohio

Even though Hillary Clinton had the upper hand when she first embarked on the campaign trail of 2008 against a supposed “less qualified” opponent, she is now merely hanging on by one thin thread. Her political career could very well come to a sudden halt once the total votes are in, once the delegates are counted and once Barack Obama is given the Democratic nomination.

She’s got one chance left to salvage her dying candidacy, one last opportunity to show the country why she is more deserving of our vote.

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio - Texas and Ohio: Two states, two debates, one chance for Hillary Rodham Clinton to save her moribund candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The former first lady suffered another bruising night Tuesday, badly losing the Wisconsin primary and the Hawaii caucuses to Barack Obama. The Illinois senator has now crushed Clinton in 10 straight contests, amassing a growing delegate lead and building support among women and white working class voters who have long formed the core of Clinton’s candidacy. READ MORE

Obama is on a roll. He’s smoking. Like Michael Jordon in his hay day, he’s “on fire,” and he doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon. What’s even more damaging to Hillary’s campaign is the fact that Obama has crossed over into uncharted territory and managed to garner the white male, middle to upper income vote as well as the less than financially stable and minority vote.

Through what can only be described as “political osmosis,” Obama has permeated every corner of society, from upper class to middle class and from white to black to in anywhere in between. His charismatic wit and genuine air of confidence attracts far more people than Hillary’s hardheaded and balls to the walls if you will, approach.

She keeps on saying she’s got more experience. What does that mean exactly? Politicians with more experience have been known for their preference towards political protocol. In other words, it’s business as usual.

We don’t need business as usual. We need something fresh and new. Experience doesn’t matter so much anymore because it’s not about what you have done; it’s about what you are going to do. We need someone to get all up in the White House’s grill and shake things up a bit.

Obama’s appeal is primarily based on that. With a fresh face, unbridled confidence and remarkable honesty, who needs experience?

I like Obama more and more with each passing day. And according to the current political polls and standings, it looks as though I’m not the only one.

campaign trail 2008, hillary clinton, barack obama, democratic nomination, presidential campaign

Try, try again. Because apparently, once isn’t enough.

Ariz. Mulls Gay Marriage Ban - Again
by The Associated Press

Republican lawmakers on Monday proposed asking voters in November to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the state, which was the first to turn down such a measure.

The proposal was backed by 16 of 30 state senators, and an identical proposal was introduced in the House. Both chambers would have to approve the measure in a vote for it to be included on the ballot.

Under the amendment, “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” The proposal comes after Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in November 2006.

The previous measure included the same definition but also contained wording that was interpreted as prohibiting government recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Seven other states approved amendments that day.

Opponents of the 2006 measure in Arizona focused much of their campaign on the additional wording’s reach. A leading backer of both measures said the new one should be considered a “consensus measure” because it is intended solely to bar recognition of same-sex marriage.

“This amendment is about bringing Arizonans together on an issue enjoying widespread agreement - that marriage is a union of one man and one woman,” said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, an advocacy group for social conservatives.

Arizona already has a state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That law withstood a 2003 court challenge, but supporters of an amendment said changing the Constitution would provide a strong legal shield.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who led the opposition campaign to the 2006 measure, said she opposes the new proposal.

“I don’t think it’s needed. I don’t think it’s necessary,” she said. “We’ve already had this fight a couple of times.”

The ballot measure proposal comes as a state commission prepares to review rule changes proposed by the administration of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano that would provide health care and other employee benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees and retirees, no matter their gender.

I’ve got two words for these Arizona lawmakers (a.k.a Republicans) at the moment.

Screw. You.

I apologize for being so blunt, but come on. Why is this necessary? Arizona already has a state law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The only illogical reason I can come up with is this: it’s a playground taunt that basically says, “Your marriage isn’t as good as ours … nah, nana poo poo.”

All right. We get it. You’ve got a problem with unions between two men and two women. You’ve made your point. Why try to take it to this level, again? Do you really need an Amendment to backup your belief? Are you that insecure about it?

If you really believed that this issue is “enjoying widespread agreement,” then why would you need an Amendment to protect it? Such confidence as this should permit you to sleep soundly at night without fear that the general public could careless who gets married to who and allow it to occur under your watch.

Keeping gay couples from obtaining health care and other such benefits that straight couples are entitled to is beyond cruel. It’s abhorrent. It’s discrimination. And if you can’t see that, then you must be blind.

This ludicrous proposal has already been turned down once. It will be turned down again. And again. And yet, again. It will be turned down repeatedly until advocacy groups such as these get it through their thick skulls that it’s not only an unnecessary law, it’s also an unconstitutional one.

gay marriage, gay marriage ban, amendment, arizona

The word is out. Hillary wants to be our President. And by “our” I mean “us,” the gays.

Yep, that’s right. Hillary wants to be a President for gay people. She wants to speak out on our behalf. She wants equality where it has otherwise been denied. And yet, she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.

How can Hillary profess one thing and then take a completely different stance on another? As sweet sounding and articulate as her words are, they are just that — words. And those words were written down the day before Super Tuesday.

Coincidence? I think not.

As far as I am concerned, Hillary can talk and talk all she wants. But until she walks the walk, I’m not buying it. Her hubby made the same kind of declaration a few years back, going on and on about how he wanted to make some real changes and how he was the President for gay people.

Remember what came of that? Absolutely nothing.

(cough) not too mention don’t ask don’t tell (cough)

Here’s Hillary’s little declaration in full, brought to you by our friends over at OurChart.
(more…)

Are you psyched? It’s Super Tuesday! Hooray …

(silence)

What? You mean you aren’t excited?

(crickets chirping)

Hmmm … could it be because there isn’t one candidate running for the Presidency who supports same-sex marriage? I feel you. The truth is that I’m far less than excited myself. I sort of know who I am going to vote for at this point, but my enthusiasm is that of a deflated balloon.

If you haven’t made up your mind, or you are still wondering where each of the candidates stand on gay marriage — here’s a quick run down courtesy of CNN:

Republicans

Mike Huckabee
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Big surprise!)

John McCain
Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Says individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.
(Says one thing and then another — which is it?)

Mitt Romney
Opposes same-sex marriage. Opposes civil unions, though had supported a Vermont-style civil unions law for Massachusetts. (For God’s sake, evolve …)

Democrats

Hillary Clinton
Opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions. Says states should ultimately decide the issue. Opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Not bad … not good enough either.)

Barack Obama
Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions. (On this issue, the only difference between you and Hillary is the color of your skin and the bathroom door you enter.)

Well, there it is. If you’re headed out to the poles, have a super time voting. I know I will. (Um … right.)

In other Super news … Sunday was the Superbowl.

Wow.

That’s basically all I have to say about that game. Give one up for the underdogs.

As for the commercials, my favorite was the Pepsi commercial with Justin Timberlake. (Sigh.)

Big surprise, right?

I thought that most of the commercials were pretty funny this year, except for a select few. Not everyone agreed with me though. The editor of After Elton.com felt that the Bridgestone commercial (the one where the guy in the car almost runs over Richard Simmons) was offense and a blatant attack on homosexuality.

Um … what?

I think he’s being just a tid bit oversensitive here. First off, Richard has never come out and said that he is gay (which the editor acknowledges but proceeds to defend his hypersensitivity regardless).

Second, I feel that the only reason why the guy in the ad wants to run Richard over is because he is extremely annoying. Not once did I link that to homosexuality. Richard Simmons grates on everyone’s nerves to a point, and his annoyance has nothing to do with sexuality. It has everything to do with his outrageous, loud and boisterous personality. Don’t make it out to be about something it isn’t.

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Read the editorial yourself and let me know what you think. While you’re at it, weigh in on your favorite Superbowl commerical or perhaps your favorite Presidential candidate.

It’s Super Tuesday, remember? Anything goes!

super tuesday, mitt romney, hillary clinton, barrack obama, john mccain, mike huckabee, superbowl, justin timberlake, after elton

If you happened to watch the democratic debate in South Carolina last night, you probably saw Clinton and Obama acting like two high school teenage drama queens vying for votes to win the distinct honor of riding high on the front float of the homecoming parade.

Basically, it’s turning into a catfight.

Clinton bobbed and weaved around the podium and, amazingly enough, not one single hair on her ego-inflated head moved an inch.
Obama shook off his gloves and tried to sting Clinton like a bee and float through the rest of the debate like a butterfly. Muhammad Ali would have been ashamed. Meanwhile, the bell rang continuously throughout the debate signifying subsequent rounds all while Edwards stood there like Alfalfa of the little rascals, only without the signature cowlick, complaining about how there were “three people in the debate, not two.”

In the immortal words of Buckwheat, “Hi … Amemba me?”

Remember us? The people who vote? The people this whole silly charade called the Presidential campaign is supposed to be about?

Who cares if Hillary is still clinging desperately to Bill’s coattails, or vice versa as the case may be? And who cares if Obama is young enough to be Clinton’s son? In my opinion, the two senators both need to grow up a bit.

For those of you who missed the heated exchange, here’s a little taste care of 365gay.com:

After a brief discussion of the nation’s economic woes, the debate devolved into an angry exchange between the two senators, with Clinton noting Obama had taken campaign contributions from a political patron facing fraud charges and Obama calling Clinton a “corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.”

As Obama tried to defend his comments about Republicans and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.

“Your husband did,” said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.

“I’m here. He’s not,” she snapped.

John Edwards, who badly trails his two rivals, tried to stay above the fray while pleading for equal time.

“Are there three people in this debate, not two?” he asked.

READ MORE

Oh, the drama.

Despite whining like a five-year-old in need of attention, Edwards did go on to make one, very good point.

“We have got to understand, this is not about us personally. It’s about what we are trying to do for this country,” he said.

The audience applauded this statement. As do I. This isn’t about Clinton, Obama or even Edwards. Yet, they are making the debates about each other. Last night they traded barbs and criticisms, and spent most of the evening talking over one another all while ignoring or straying away from the issues at hand.

We all get enough of that at home at the dinner table, we don’t need to watch it on television during what is considered to be an important and relevant political debate as well.

At this point, the republican candidates are probably sitting back twiddling their thumbs and mumbling “excellent” like Mr. Burns because they don’t have to waste anymore precious brain cells trying to destroy the democrats. It’s painfully obvious that the dems have no problem destroying themselves.

These candidates aren’t running for class president, homecoming court or head cheerleader here. They are running for the highest office in the nation. One of these three people could end up being the next President of the United States.

The bottom line is this …

We already have an immature, buffoon in office. We don’t need another one.

hillary clinton, south carolina debate, barack obama, john edwards, gay365, presidential campaign, presidential debate

What is it with Iowa? Why is winning that state over such a big deal? Is it because the state holds the most electoral votes? I have no clue. Anybody want to fill me in on this?

In trying to stay abreast of the political undertakings that will eventually go on to define this year’s presidential election, I uncovered this press release from the folks over at ImGay.tv (YouTube’s lesbian step sister):

ImGay.TV Challenges Clinton Campaign Workers
Des Moines, Iowa — Day one into covering the Iowa Caucus, and staff reporters from ImGay.tv, the new all gay internet medium akin to YouTube, find out just what it means to be snubbed from a presidential campaign.

“I’m really disappointed,” report Michael Freincle on his vlog, a video blog. “She has supporters who don’t support all Americans, and yet Hillary’s trying to govern all Americans.” Freincle is one of seven staff reporters with ImGay.tv covering the Iowa Caucus in Des Moines.

Cate Colgan, internet entrepreneur from Clearwater, Florida launched ImGay.TV in the summer of 2007. With a slogan of “Where you don’t have to try out, you just have to be out”, the internet service offers free membership, and a place for anyone and everyone to post video, vlogs and all things gay. Colgan decided to take a team to Iowa to cover the Caucus in mid-December.

“As far as we know, we’re the only gay medium that can do this kind of coverage” Colgan says during a phone interview from the Des Moines Convention Center. “We do the interviews, videos or vlogs and post them that day. You don’t have to wait for the paper or the evening news, and we’re covering what’s important to the GLBT community.”

But getting campaign workers to talk has been a challenge, especially in some camps. “We really didn’t expect this from the Hillary campaign” says Colgan. Freincle and Dayna Firth are two college students volunteering to cover the caucus with ImGay.TV over Christmas break. A quick view of their initial vlogs reveals the struggles the duo are finding, “The crowd is kind of looking at us like we’re not really supposed to be there” notes Firth in her December 31st vlog.

Firth, a straight woman and President of her college’s Pride and Democratic Student Group jumped at the opportunity to go to the caucus. “It’s kind of concerning to me, that we weren’t turned down by anyone at the Obama campaign,” continues Firth “But then coming here to see Bill Clinton, there were many more people who didn’t want to see us here.”

“We want all of their reactions, and we’re seeking out every candidate’s campaign” says Colgan. In one day, the team has covered the camps of Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson.

ImGay.TV is accepting questions from registered members. “We’re also open to anyone posting videos or vlogs! Just remember, it’s where you don’t have to try out, you just have to be out!” says Colgan.

You can register for ImGay.tv on line. I have already checked it out and it’s a pretty cool sight. Because of the importance of GLBT issues in the 2008 campaign, it’s worth paying attention to what’s going on - even in Iowa. And considering the way other countries handle the democratic process, we’re lucky to be in the position that we are.

Iowa caucus, Iowa, presidential campaign, obama, clinton, youtube, imgay.tv

To all my sporty lesbians out there, I know you feel my pain. I’m home today with a sprained ankle that has ballooned twice its size and is the result of a hustle play during a recreational league soccer game I played last night. It hurts like a biotch. But at least we won the game.

I am writing to you all from the comfort of my couch. It’s cozy. There’s snow on the ground, a warm cup of Joe at my side and world of GLBT news at my disposal. So, let’s get to it.

Fair play.

I’m a believer. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Or something like that … what I am trying to say is that I found a piece of news this morning that I felt the need to write about simply because I’ve written about it from the other side … the Republican side that is.

Let me explain.
(more…)

After all of this talk about ENDA and the actions of the Human Rights Campaign, I wasn’t surprised in the least to see the following article this morning.

(more…)

This week has started out on the negative side for me. I usually try to rise above it, mixing in lighthearted posts with serious rants, but that’s just the way the cookie is a crumblin’ these days.

In the words of Destiny’s Child, I say, “No, no, no, no, no” even if HRC says, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.”

The Human Rights Campaign organization was one of a few Civil Rights groups to back the gay-only version of ENDA, otherwise known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Am I the only one who’s confused by this?

(more…)