A Bit of Good, a Bit of Bad

So the great 2009 election chaos is over. Yes, for those who hadn’t noticed there were five important elections last night. These were governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia, Question One in Maine, a Congressional race in NY 23, and Referendum 71 in Washington State.

Now the two governor’s races and the Congressional race were about local issues so it was, of course, all about Obama. Well, at least according to the MSM and the GOP. I noticed the GOP crowing long and loud last night about their crowning achievement in unseating two incumbent governors who just happened to be Democrats. This is, to them, proof that the GOP is back and on the rise and about to destroy the hated, unpopular Obama, etc.

Oddly I notice that they’re ignoring NY 23 where, at least in part due to the GOP turning on its own, the conservative candidate lost. Clearly that was a referendum on the GOP’s policies and, obviously, it means that the GOP is on the decline and the Democrats are about to destroy them, etc.

The lesson here is that all three of those elections were local elections about local issues and have no real national significance.

Meantime, a little bit of bad and a little bit of good for gay rights issues. The voters in Maine choose to outlaw gay marriage after their legislature and government passed it and this despite my personal plea for them not to be a state of dicks. I am very disappointed in you, Maine! I expected better than for you to prove that direct democracy is a bad idea.

Over in Washington state we see how wonderful direct democracy is as a gay rights bill there pass, showing public support for civil unions. Knowing what I know about Washington and how the courts have ruled, I’m guessing that within two years we’ll have a court ruling there saying that giving all the rights of marriage but calling it a “civil union” is discrimination illegal.

So five races. Two went the way I wanted. Three didn’t. I don’t view any of these as having any real national significance beyond, say, next week. By this time in 2010 we’ll have all forgotten about them.

Question One Time

To all my readers in Maine: please get out there and vote against Question One. This odious little bit of attempted legislation would remove the right of same-sex couples to marry in your state. You don’t want to follow in the footsteps of California and remove people’s right to marry, do you? I certainly hope not! Fivethirtyeight.com shows that probably the ballot measure will be defeated, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need all the help we can get! Please vote. Thank you!

Colbert on Washington State

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word – Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

So I can’t get the video to embed, but click on the title of it and you’ll see something pretty damned entertaining!

Be Happy You Don’t Live in Uganda *

* unless you do, in which case, damn! Sorry.

Uganda has never been known as a great bastion of human rights and economic development. The country’s reputation wasn’t ever wonderful and, let’s face it, Idi Amin didn’t help matters (though his reign of evil made for a great movie). So, yeah, life sucks in Uganda, but it really sucks if you’re gay. But for some people it doesn’t suck enough, and they want to make it far, far worse.

Let me introduce you to the 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill. This bill would do a number of unpleasant things, such as this list which I lifted from Box Turtle Bulliten’s article on the subject.

■Reaffirm the lifetime sentence currently provided upon conviction of homosexuality, and extends the definition from sexual activity to merely “touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.”
■Create a new category of “aggravated homosexuality” which provides for the death penalty for “repeat offenders” and for cases where the individual is HIV-positive.
■Criminalizes all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.
■Criminalizes the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
■Adds a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
■Adds an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.

Well, how fun.

To my gay friends in Uganda, as well as to anyone there who values freedom and justice, I say fight this bill, and fight it hard! Don’t make your country worse!

And to those who support it, I say fuck you. Go die in a fire.

Gay in Guam

Guam, America’s overseas territory that most people don’t know exists, is debating Bill 185, which would extend domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples. Naturally the Catholic Church, you know, the greatest force of evil in the world, feels the need to intrude their nose into this.

Sadly, it turns out that the major sponsor of this bill, BJ Cruz, who is openly gay, was himself molested at the age of thirteen by a priest. I really wish that surprised me more.

Even better is the stance of the Archdiocese who felt the need to put out a letter on the subject. Read it closely, especially the part where they talk in admiration about Islamic funamentalists executing people for being gay. Fun times!

The Catholic Church needs to shut the fuck up and stay out of politics! Good luck, everyone in Guam! Make it happen!

Chattin’ With the Gays

President Obama addressed one of the largest gay rights groups earlier today. It was an uninspiring address that basically went over all the usual boilerplate and said nothing new, nothing substantive and nothing interesting.

I’m not quite as cynical about this as Andrew Sullivan, but I’m still skeptical and unimpressed by the whole thing. If the President wants to make life easier for gays, let him actually do it, and then I’ll be pleased.

Bloody Hell

In Ohio the Red Cross has changed the age limit for donating blood. You can now do it at the age of 16 if you have parental consent. Well, and also you have to be straight.

See, one of the dirty little secrets of blood drives and such is that you aren’t allowed to donate blood if you’re gay, lesbian or bisexual. Well, you can, provided you haven’t had sex in the last long while.

This policy came up as a result of the AIDS scare back in the 1980’s, and one can argue that back then it made some sense, since we didn’t know too much about the virus. Now, however? Let me ask you all this: who would you rather have donating blood; a straight man who fucks five women a month and never uses protection, or a gay man in a committed relationship who practices safe, monogomous sex with his boyfriend of thirty years?

The Red Cross justifies their change in the age requirement thusly:

The Red Cross says lowering the age requirement is a way to increase blood supplies. The fact is, they need 300 units of blood each day, and that requires 300 donors.

You know what else would provide more donors? Changing the policies on what sexual orientations can donate.

More on Sex Offender Laws

From the blog Classically Liberal comes an article all about the damage sex offender laws (not sex offenders themselves), do to society… particularly when the offenders are under eighteen.

Our sex offender registration laws, as well as many laws governing sex in this country, are foolish, dangerous and wrong. They do nothing to help people and everything to hurt. They need to be changed. Hopefully with articles like that one, articles like the ones I’ve written on the topic, and ones by larger media outlets like The Economist will help to finally bring change.

Gay in Middle School

The New York Times Magazine has a fascinating article about being gay in middle school. I highly recommend reading it.

My own middle school years were… interesting. Sex was first starting to get my attention as something more than a theoretical, and entirely solo, exercise. I was starting to see possibilities for certain activities, and was becoming aware that some of my friends had already “done it”, as we said back in the day (including one who’d lost his virginity to his older sister. Bit of a squick factor there).

In fact my last summer as a middle schooler, when I was a wee lad of fourteen, is when I first became sexually active with two of my male friends. At the time I was a little confused about it, and throughout most of my high school years kept telling myself I was straight; that this was just a bit of experimentation of the sort that many boys do. This is true, and as proof let me point out that both of my friends are now straight. With me, though, it stuck and I spent my last year or so of high school thinking that, yes, I was probably gay.

In later years that didn’t seem to ring quite true with me as I still had an interest in women, though certainly a substantially different, and lesser, interest than the one I had for guys. So after finally experiencing some of the joys women can offer (not until I was 25… how sad is that?), I eventually figured out that I’m bi, but with a strong preference for males (or as one of my friends put it, I’m just horny enough do fuck anything).

Even when I was in high school, in 1991, at a very liberal high school, I wasn’t completely comfortable with coming out at school. I was out to a couple friends and a couple teachers but that was about it. So I feel great envy and admiration for gay/bi/lesbian kids today who are able to come out in middle school, especially as most middle schoolers tend to be idiots and not very supporting of anyone different from themselves. Well done, kids!

Life’s Gentle Ironies

Indiana court refuses to grant same-sex divorce. We all know divorce is the real threat to marriage, so I assume the conservatives are happy.

Actually, this does raise a good question for those who are against same-sex marriage. In the places where it is legal, do you favor same-sex divorce, or do you hold that once people are legally married, regardless of the circumstances involved, they should stay married?