Finally - the levity I mentioned so long ago...

And how appropriate that it's in regards to not posting in a timely manner!  I lifted this from a blog called Daily Dose of Funny.  But this is from the last post they made which was back in '08...so, not so daily, but perfect for a last, long ago post.

Top 10 excuses for not updating your blog: 

Hi loyal readers! I know I haven’t updated in a long time. I’m sorry, but…

10 … Since I had the facial reconstruction surgery I can actually get laid.

9… Really, isn’t quality more important then quantity?

8… It turns out my boss actually wants me to do some work in exchange for the money he gives me weekly.

7… I thought I had updated the blog, but it turns out I was high and only THOUGHT I did.

6… I was waiting for the Republicans to regroup.

5… I was having more fun beating my head against a wall covered in nails.

4… I was trying to break the record for longest masturbation session; it’s hard to type and “love yourself” at the same time.

3… I was kidnapped by terrorists while in Afghanistan. Luckily I was able to build an armor out of scraps of metal and old electronic components and used it to escape. Still couldn’t get the damn phone browser to work though.

2… I did update! But some Chinese hackers broke into the site and erased the posts. Then some Filipino hackers broke into my home computer and deleted the drafts I had saved. And then someone's dog ate my printouts.

1 … I forgot the password to the blog.

Consequences

It seems I’m on a roll with the religious conservatives vs. the rest of us, so why not keep going.  I wrote this kind of in conjunction with the previous post, and when I realized they were in the same realm, just made a few changes to help the through line.

So, we want a dose of religious freedom, do we? And we want the government to recognize that freedom, right?  Yay…that’s awesome. We should totally do that! (Oh wait, we already do.) And what if there was a religion that defined marriage as a union of love and commitment between any two people, no matter their sex? Would the government then be compelled to allow such marriages to be civilly recognized? The self-proclaimed “righteous” would say no…

Dear, dear NY State Senator Ruben Diaz. Harbinger of all that is right. Moral compass of the people of New York. When your supporters and fellow counter-demonstrators proclaim “Homo is a no no” and “No Gay in the USA,” do you really believe that you’re on the right track? Does that make you feel as if your position is one of strength and good measure because you’re taking such a hard-line, "values-based" approach? Aside from the obvious wrongs of your position and how it is totally antithetical to your belief structure, I do applaud one thing, however, the conviction with which you believe. Unfortunately, those strong, hateful beliefs are so damaging to others, and you make them more so by working to force these beliefs on others. Believe with all your heart, but don’t rip mine out of my chest trying to make me believe the same. It’s time to stop hiding behind religion, Mr. Diaz, and start facing the citizens whose rights you wish kept from them. God did not elect you to the NY State Senate; the people did. Remember that – you are charged to represent ALL of us equally – Christian, Gay, Muslim, Lesbian, Buddhist, Transsexual, Agnostic, Jewish, Atheist…

Many of your colleagues thankfully, it seems, believe in equality. However, they’re terrified of the political ramifications of affirming that equality. How about the ramifications of denying those who support same-sex marriage?  How about the ramifications of denying civil and human rights to citizens, not just in your districts, but across the state? I call upon all those with the strength of conviction to confront those Senators, nay – any lawmaker – on the fence and tell them it’s time to “man up.” It’s time to do what’s right rather than what’s politically safe because it won’t be politically safe for long. And if and when you take the path of discrimination and prejudice, you will be held accountable; there will be no back-pedaling, no redemption. You will be reviled for your cowardice, rather than rewarded for the integrity and virtue you could display. Now, look again, and rethink those aforementioned political ramifications.

New Yorkers have been patient, but this is the time. David Patterson may have gotten so many things wrong during his tenure as governor, but right now, he’s so right. “The time for justice, the time for equality, the time for equal rights can never be any more urgent than right now.” 

Oh, the woes...

First of all – I’m a bad blogger.  I wrote this post, and the one I will post next on a plane, fully 5 days ago now.  Is it really that hard for me to just copy and paste?  Oy.  Anyway – I submit the following to you, fair reader... 

And every day some brand new issue rears its head to piss you off… Well, not so much new issues.  It seems we are destined to re-live and re-hash the same worn-out issues day after day, week after week, year after year.  The first of these we’ll ‘wade’ into – and the one currently making the media rounds – is abortion.  Good ol’ divisive Roe v. Wade.  We all know the back-story on the recent surge in the subject’s popularity – but here’s a quick recap.  The University of Notre Dame invites President Obama to give the commencement address and receive an honorary law degree.  Conservatives rail against the decision.  Students and pro-lifers protest, some students even boycott their own graduation.  Obama is a baby killer!  His agenda is not in line with the university, or its Christian values. 

Before continuing on, I feel compelled to remind myself of the quote that first inspired me to blogify on the matter.  “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”  For pro-lifers – the pro-choicers aren’t vicious baby-killers.  For pro-choicers – the pro-lifers aren’t all fundamentalist doctor office bombers. 

It’s so hard to take that message to heart when conservatives and pro-lifers say that it was “inappropriate” for the president to speak at ND. That is was wrong for him to accept an honorary degree. The vast majority of those in attendance, whether or not they agree with Mr. Obama’s stance on abortion realize that; a) He’s the freaking president (democratically elected by a sizeable margin, including a win of the state of Indiana); 2) He’s an immensely intelligent individual; and D) he, exhaustively it seems, works to bring all parties to the table and recognize every position’s validity and underlying principle.  Part D especially seems rather Christian to me.  Respect and patience for the other side, no?  Love and compassion for all at the table?  And to all that, in the case of the Notre Dame controversy, I merely say, take a look at duLac - The Guide to Student Life at the University of Notre Dame.  Just a quick bit of web-surfing turned up all the support one needs to drive the point home:

The University of Notre Dame strives for a spirit of inclusion among the members of this community for distinct reasons articulated in our Christian tradition. We prize the uniqueness of all persons as God’s creatures. We welcome all people, regardless of color, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social or economic class, and nationality, for example, precisely because of Christ’s calling to treat others as we desire to be treated. We value gay and lesbian members of this community as we value all members of this community. We condemn harassment of any kind, and University policies proscribe it. We consciously create an environment of mutual respect, hospitality and warmth in which none are strangers and all may flourish.

Done, right?  Not quite.  As much as we all want to include - it being the spirit of the democratic process and all - there will always be people that think it’s morally and ideologically prudent to exclude.

This bit of rhetoric brings me to a broader “freedoms” question: So, Christians want their values more entrenched in daily life in America, right? How is such a move any different than the imposition of Sharia, or Islamic law, in majority Islamic nations? The problem with these fundamentalist views is that they exclude and discriminate tremendously against minorities in the population. How is that right, or even anything resembling right? I understand the drive to evangelize. I understand the desire to follow God’s will and do right in the world. But stop for a moment and see what’s really happening. A universal foray into Christian values and principles for those who are not Christian - of which there are millions in this country - is simply dangerous.  How can it be righteous to impose upon anyone?  While many people in this country are Christian, or support values that Christians embody, we must be sure not to further blur the line between one’s freedom to worship, and another’s civil liberties, even if that other is in a minority position. But people will be who they will be. And they will passionately believe what they believe. Such a deceptively vicious cycle...

 

A dose of human rights...

There's so much debate about right and wrong on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.  While I certainly advocate for same-sex marriage - I'm doing so because I just don't really see any rational argument against it.  Oh yeah, and because I'm gay and want to marry a man at some point in my life and thus begin my big gay take over of the world... Oh wait - scratch that last thought... (Note to self: don't let them in on your plans for world domination and gay-ification.)

My argument is founded on a basic civil rights rationale. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 (with a yea vote from the US), outlined basic human rights and guaranteed those rights to every person. While not a treaty or other binding resolution, the document was used to define several items included in the UN Charter, which IS binding on all member states. The Declaration states that such rights are "without distinction of any kind." OK. Sounds pretty clear to me. Everything in there applies to everyone, regardless of, well, anything.

Article 7 continues with "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Again - seems pretty clear to me. Everyone is protected from discrimination. Period. Got it.

Article 16 - 1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This latter article provides a little room for both conservative and liberal interpretations. I recognize that. Many conservatives would probably argue that it is the man and the woman who are given the right to marry one another. However, nothing in the document explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but just that men and women each have the right to marry. It doesn't say who they can and cannot marry. That would discriminate, wouldn't it? By using such language, the declaration is far ahead of its time (remember, 1948) by truly holding to its principles and NOT discriminating.

The Declaration was also established on the idea of family. Family, as defined by Merriam-Webster (granted, they put E.V.O.O in there...) is "a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head." It is also "the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children, also any of the various social units different from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family, i.e single parent family." To all those out there that say same-sex marriage will destroy the family unit - I say - we ARE the family unit. Just different from yours. And, relax, that's ok. I'll leave your family alone to believe what you want to believe and enjoy the human rights you've been given - just give me the same respect and consideration.

Another declaration speaks to these rights as well. Arguably one of the single greatest sentences in the English language, and one of the strongest rebuttals of tyranny, the Declaration of Independence begins with, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Should same-sex marriage be denied, that strong oppressive, tyrannical power, would be a direct affront to my rights under both the UN Declaration and the Declaration that formed the nation.

The rights guaranteed by and to humanity include religious freedoms as well. And I think that's an immensely important right to have. I don't think that any religious organization should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage if that offends their beliefs any more than I should be compelled to believe what's written in the Book of Mormon, or believe that Jesus has come or hasn't come, or that Buddah is the way to enlightenment. But civil recognition is in order - and long overdue. That recognition begins with the realization that it is a Right (capital R, thank you) for two people who are of legal age, and consent to enter into the contractual obligation that is marriage, to indeed marry. Keep religion where it belongs - in church, temple, mosque - in its place of worship. Why is it necessary to force it upon someone else? Wasn't our country created upon rejection of such one-sided, oppressive behavior and invasion into the private lives of citizens? Do unto others, my friends...

An Open Letter to Newt Gingrich

You said on Fox News that there is a "gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence...no matter what the law of the land."

First thing first. Will some people be violent? Sure. It happens. Most of us don't condone it and see it as antithetical to any cause. I'm sure I could go on about violent sects of the religious right, but a pissing match isn't my point.

As for gay and secular 'fascists'...well...come on! I'll only speak for myself here, but I don't believe in political and social Darwinism, a rejection of capitalist principles, or creation of a single party state. Individualism and the divergent ideas we have in this country can contribute to a great and balanced society. What we all need to realize is that it is through this individualism that we can come to pretty amazing, cooperative outcomes for our economic and social woes. I realize what you're doing is largely political posturing to drum up the conservative base; but if radical conservatives would just try, truly try, to work with the government we have for at least (and hopefully more than) the next four years, they could actually take some of the credit when things go well. The country has spoken and the leadership they currently desire differs greatly from what you embody. While your viewpoint is welcomed, your pejorative commentary is not.

And Newt - if you don't want our will imposed on you, stop trying to impose yours on us. Your idea of marriage comes from...religion? Historical "norms?" Your belief is that marriage is a sacred (read religious) institution between a man and a woman. Then how about we take away any rights the government has given to you because you are, in fact, married (twice divorced, might I add). If marriage is this purely religious establishment, it should have no government recognition - No additional rights bestowed upon married persons in a non-religious state. So while the government arguably has no place in the marriage business, there they are. As a fair and progressive nation, let's give that social equality to EVERYBODY, not just those with YOUR fascist viewpoint. If you and yours want to keep marriage a sacred institution between a man and a woman - Rock on! Fantastic! I won't go to your church to get married to my gay lover. But don't tell me I can't go to my welcoming community and express the love I share with the one person with whom I want to share my life.

Ultimately, nobody's trying to push anything on you. We all fully expect that you will continue to lead your narrow-minded life, cavorting with your narrow-minded friends and colleagues, spreading your narrow-minded hate, in your narrow-minded community. Fine. Live there. Do that. I don't have to like it. But don't you DARE tell me how to lead MY life, express feelings to MY friends and lovers, and interact in a respectful way with those in MY community.

Take a look at your own words and actions, Mr. Former Speaker. The law of the land is equality, liberty and justice. Perhaps, sir, you should learn to embrace and practice those ideals of which you speak BEFORE you speak of them.

Peace out

(Note: this post was originally published 4/19/09 on my Facebook page)

The blog begins...

It was time. I was getting pissed off. Or sometimes I was so elated I could hardly stand it. I needed an outlet for some of these - dare I say - feelings I was having. Why not give my friends and family a better understanding of who I am and what I stand for? Thus, time to blog. No?

Further inspiration came from - no joke - Bette Midler. Well, through Bette Midler, more precisely. The Divine Miss M covered a song by Howard Crabtree and Mark Waldrop called "Laughing Matters" from a musical review entitled When Pigs Fly which played Off-Broadway in 1996. The lyrics of the song speak to my mindset these days, and, surprisingly, after a bit of research, I learned that the show opened on my birthday (August 1) at the Douglas Fairbanks Theater. How fitting...

Anyway - the lyrics to the song are below. Please note that all lyrics are property and copyright of their respective owners and are strictly for educational purposes only.  

"Laughing Matters" from Howard Crabtree's When Pigs Fly

Conceived by Howard Crabtree & Mark Waldrop. Lyrics by Mr. Waldrop.

Live at 5, and CNN keep us all abreast

Of breaking stories that can tend to make us anxious and depressed. 

Problems with no answers hang on like some chronic cough. 

And every day some brand new issue rears its head to piss you off.   

Bad guys win, optimism’s wearing thin, 

Things are spinning out of control. 

Cynicism’s all the fad, world events could make us mad as hatters. 

Almost every day, some underpinning slips away. 

These aren’t laughing matters.   

Time bombs tick. People keep on getting sick. 

And a nickel’s not worth a cent. 

Wickedness and greed abound. 

Just as peace is gaining ground it shatters. 

Hate is here to stay, and justice goes to those who pay. 

Friend, these aren’t laughing matters.  

The truth is scarier, by far, than anything that Stephen King could write.

The stories in the paper are the daily small decline and fall spelled out in black and white.

Oh, what to do...what to do...

How to take a brighter view, when your noodle's totally fried?

Human spirits need to be leavened by a little levity,

So take those blues and bounce them off the wall.

Keep your humor, please.

'Cause, don't you know, it's times like these that

Laughing matters most of all.

I'll import some of my previous Facebook posts here for the sake of having it all in one place. And I welcome comments. But please keep in mind that there's enough anger and deep-seeded negativity out in the world. Keep the hateful comments to a minimum. As it is, it'll be hard to control my own frustration, but let's work on some constructive dialogue, shall we? I'm taking the lead from the song lyrics (corny - I know). There will be some heavy, heart-felt, stuff up here - the things that aren't laughing matters.

But I hope to have some mindless, good fun as well.  Because, laughing matters most of all.