I saw this little news tidbit over at Box Turtle Bulletin.  But first, let’s review some testimony about marriage from Alan Chambers, president of the ex-gay therapy group Exodus International.  Alan likes to tell people that homosexuals can change.  Here he is, giving testimony at a 2004 U.C. Berkeley Debate on Same-Sex Marriage…

My name is Alan Chambers; I am a Christian…

Hello Alan…

…a husband to my wife, Leslie and I also used to be a homosexual. To be clear, I did not choose my same-sex attractions nor did I willfully adopt a homosexual orientation, but my response to both, my behaviors, were a choice.

I remember being a lonely 18 year-old searching for Mr. Right. I remember the ache to have a man hold me, protect me, love me and devote his life to me. I remember thinking I would do anything to fill that insatiable need. I did everything short of praying for my knight in shining armor to show up on my doorstep. I was certain that beyond the shadow of a doubt that the missing piece to my life’s puzzle was going to be found in the man of my dreams.

Nearly 14 years later, I am happy, content and satisfied emotionally, physically, spiritually, relationally and sexually. My process was one of self-determination and willful choice to move beyond the box that enslaves so many wonderful same-sex attracted people. Change is possible and I am living proof. I used to be homosexual and today I am not.

Had same-sex marriage been legal in 1990, I am certain that I would have tested that option. I met men who I wanted to marry. Yet today, as a mature adult with a sober perspective, I realize that I wasn’t searching for a man as much as I was searching for an answer, a drug even, to numb the pain and to make me feel better about who I thought I was. The law kept me from making one, if not many, life-altering mistakes.

Recently, Dennis Teti wrote in "The Weekly Standard", "Governments’ purpose is not to dispense rights but the secure rights created by nature and nature’s God." The current laws saved my life and continue to save the lives of other young people like me who need life saving boundaries.

As a former homosexual, I know that this battle has little, if nothing, to do with marriage, but rather with an absolute need for social approval and acceptance. This experiment with marriage, being promoted by a few, is about silencing inward guilt, pain and the gut-wrenching reality resident within homosexual and lesbian people that their desires will never be completely satisfied in the ways they seek homosexually. Legal endorsement and approval of same-sex marriage will simply guarantee that more lives those of today’s and future children, will be ruined. We already live in a truly tolerant society where the law views us all equally. Race, religion, gender, age or disability affects our personal freedoms. The laws in place that protect marriage do so to protect an institution that has been the bedrock of societies for thousands of years and most importantly to protect children. A two parent, one man-one woman, family is the best environment in which to raise the next generation. We must do all we can to protect this family unit.

Again, I am one of tens of thousands of people whom have successfully changed their sexual orientation. I am grateful for the message of change and for the current laws that saved my life.

Saved your life did they…?

Woman accused of stabbing husband formally charged

BOULDER – A woman accused of stabbing her husband less than two months after their wedding day is now facing second-degree murder charges.

[Traci] Housman told police they were drinking a lot the night of Aug. 2 and started arguing after "John began telling everyone, ‘I’m a gay guy.’"

According to the wife the fight got physical when they got home and she stabbed him in self defense.  She’s facing 32 years in jail now.  Good thing this guy wasn’t allowed to marry another man, eh Alan?

You’re right Alan…absolutely right.  This battle has little, if nothing, to do with marriage, but rather with an absolute need for social approval and acceptance.  Right on.  It is being promoted by a few, is about silencing inward guilt, pain and the gut-wrenching reality resident within homosexuals.  Some homosexuals.  The ones that hate themselves and want more then anything else to be heterosexual.  Homosexuals like you Alan.  As long as there exist some gay people, anywhere, who could accept themselves just as they are, and live happy, contented, decent lives just as they are, and find someone of their own sex to love and cherish and settle down with…then what does that make you? 

Silencing inward guilt?  Can a man really buy self respect by driving a dagger into the hopes and dreams of his neighbors?  Really?

I’ve written about this before, but it bears repeating again and again because it really says it all.  An old high school friend of mine told me once about taking a college course on human sexuality.  The course, he said, included a number of films which you might easily expect to find in an Adult Entertainment store then in a university classroom.  Most of the kids who signed up for that course did so, according to my friend who probably did also, just to see those films. 

What they didn’t bargain for was also having to watch a bunch of sex they didn’t much like.  In addition to the hot young babes there was also footage of folks old enough to be their own parents having sex.  This was after all, a course on human sexuality, not pornography.  My friend said the sections on geriatric sex generally grossed out the audience.  But not as much as the section on gay male sex.  But it wasn’t just watching two guys having sex specifically, that bothered the audience.  Some of them.

Which was what my friend was telling me about, in wide eyed wonder, since he was one of the few heterosexuals I knew back then who were really and truly unfazed by my sexual orientation.  We were all in college then and I was in the process of slowly coming out to my friends, one at a time.  He was one of the first I’d come out to and that afternoon he was telling me in wonder about his human sexuality class and the gay sex film they’d seen.  I remember it well, because in retrospect it was one of those rare moments where I could actually see someone getting it.  He said when the gay male sex scenes came on screen, the ignorant jock types in the class burst out laughing and mocked the couple.  But then images of them being affectionate with each other came on screen and the atmosphere changed.  Those scenes completely offended the jocks he said…far more, far, Far more, then watching them have sex did.

That was 1973 or ‘74 as I remember it.  Back in those days if you wanted to watch pornography you either got some grainy 8mm stag films from some shady character or you went to an X-rated movie somewhere in the really bad part of town (or Viers Mill Road across from the Zayres if you lived in Rockville, Maryland…).  Nowadays you download it off the Internet and teens as young as 13 are way more sexually confidant and secure then my generation ever was.  The cultural scolds are bellyaching that the nation is swimming in sexually charged images and that it’s dragging our morals into the gutter.  But notice that one of their biggest bugaboos, their deepest fear, their prime target in the culture war isn’t the proliferation of pornography…it’s same-sex marriage.  This, this above all else, is their evidence that the culture is sinking into a bottomless pit: homosexuals couples are getting married. 

Try this experiment.  Open a gay bath house somewhere in the Bible Belt, and nearby, open a same-sex wedding chapel, and see which one gets the most protests.  Trust me it won’t even be close.  It will be as though the bath house isn’t even there, as long as the chapel is.

The lightning rod, the flash point in homophobic bigotry has always been same-sex love, not same-sex sex.  It isn’t that we have sex that bothers the bigots.  If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard that "I don’t care what you people do in the privacy of your bedrooms…" bullshit I’d be rich.  It’s when we Flaunt It that they start screaming about militant homosexuals.  And what, exactly, is flaunting it?  Well I can tell you what it isn’t: having sex. 

The tectonics of attitude are shifting in subtle ways that are geographic, psychic and also generational, suggested Katherine M. Franke, a lesbian who teaches law and is a director of the Center for the Study of Law and Culture at Columbia University. “I’ve been attacked on the street and called all sorts of names” for kissing a female partner in public, Professor Franke said. “The reception our affection used to generate was violence and hatred,” she added. “What I’ve found in the last five years is that my girlfriend and I get smiles from straight couples, especially younger people. Now there’s almost this aggressive sense of ‘Let me tell you how terrific we think that is.’ ”

Yet gay-bashing still occurs routinely, Mr. Patton of the Anti-Violence Project said, even in neighborhoods like Chelsea in Manhattan, where the sight of two men kissing on the street can hardly be considered a frighten-the-horses proposition. “In January some men were leaving a bar in Chelsea,” saying goodbye with a kiss, Mr. Patton said. “One friend got into a taxi and then a car behind the taxi stopped and some guys jumped out and beat up the other two.” One victim of the attack, which is under investigation by the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, was bruised and shaken. The second had a broken jaw.

-The New York Times, February 18, 2007 – A Kiss Too Far

That Times article begins with a story about how a candy commercial featuring an accidental same-sex kiss generated enough controversy that it had to be withdrawn.  The article noted that the incident, "had the inadvertent effect of revealing how a simple display of affection grows in complexity as soon as one considers who gets to demonstrate it in public, and who, very often, does not."

And so it goes.  A same-sex couple is brutally beaten in front of a restaurant in Scottsdale, Arizona simply for holding hands inside.  So security guards at a fast food joint throw a same-sex couple out for sharing a kiss and then call the police on them.  So a same-sex couple, strolling too close to the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, get handcuffed and arrested for kissing.  That arrest for kissing in front of the Mormon Temple, so soon after it became apparent that Proposition 8 was funded by massive amounts of Mormon money and labor, made headlines all over the world.  The response of the Mormon hierarchy was to smear the kissers with accusations that they were groping each other in public.  Not a shred of evidence exists, apart from Mormon propaganda to support that charge, but look at it for what it says about the thinking here.  Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex…

When they talk about their "deeply held religious beliefs", this is what they mean.  Not the belief in God Almighty.  Not the belief in Christ the redeemer.  Not the belief in the literal truth of the Bible.  This is the deeply held religious belief that they will not suffer doubt in.  Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex.  A kiss in public between a same-sex couple isn’t a gesture of affection, it’s a sex act.

In USA Today, the Faith and Reason section recently ran a column titled, When is a kiss not just a kiss? When it’s a gay protest…

One denomination after another is stressed — possibly to a breaking point for some believers — by furious battles over the roles of openly gay people in church life and ministry. Can they be clergy or bishops? Can their relationships be blessed?

And the newest protest symbol by gay activists is a kiss…

But this has always been the battle.  Not to have sex, but to be allowed to love.  The difference between the thugs who beat up Jean Rolland and Andrew Frost in front of the Frasher’s Steak House in Scottsdale, Arizona, and the Mormon church, isn’t so much one of degree as clarity of purpose.  It came to this:  When Mormon security guards saw a same-sex couple share a kiss, they had to detain them and call the police.  When that arrest became a headline all over the world, the Mormon church immediately sought to replace the image of a kiss in the public mind with an image of two men groping each other.  You hear the anti-gay warriors say time and again that there is no such thing as a homosexual, there is only homosexual behavior.  But look at their attitudes toward marriage generally.  Men are the God ordained head of the household.  Women must submit gracefully to their husbands.  Their union isn’t validated by their joy in one another, but by the blessing of the church.  It isn’t something that exists for its own sake, but to further God’s plan for humanity.  It is not simply that there can be no homosexuals.  There is no such thing as love.  There is only authority.  There is only power.  And a kiss embodies everything that power hates and wants to exterminate from the human spirit.

A huge meat eating plant has been discovered in the Philippines…

A new species of giant carnivorous plant has been discovered in the highlands of the central Philippines.

The pitcher plant is among the largest of all pitchers and is so big that it can catch rats as well as insects in its leafy trap.

There’s a photo of it on the BBC site.  I used to grow pitcher plants and Venus fly traps, but these kinds of plants don’t take well to the Mid-Atlantic climate (they are tropical plants mostly) and I gave it up.  But this one seems to grow at high altitudes which can’t be all that hot.  Be nice if we could get it to grow in here in Baltimore.  I could grow a bunch of them around my garden and not have to worry about rats going after my bird feeders.

Oh look…

Protector of traditional marriage Doug Manchester leaving wife of 43 years

In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative—which ultimately passed—on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church,” which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman. Indeed, the Catholic Church has vehemently opposed gay marriage. Then again, it’s also not too keen on divorce.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail…

Let me guess…it was all those same-sex marriages the California supreme court allowed to stand that caused their divorce.  Manchester was a critical player in the battle over Proposition 8.  Specifically, he provided a big chunk of the cash that helped it get on the ballot…

Developer Doug Manchester and other prominent San Diego County businessmen have given significant financial support to an initiative that would ban same-sex marriage targeted for the November statewide ballot.

Manchester’s $125,000 donation has prompted a gay-rights activist to urge a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the Manchester-owned San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina.

In addition to Manchester, Mission Valley developer Terry Caster has donated $162,500; Robert Hoehn, owner of Hoehn Motors in Carlsbad, has given $25,000; and La Jolla businessman Roger Benson has given $50,000, state records show.

Manchester said he was motivated by his strong Catholic faith.

“I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” he said.

Donations from San Diego residents make up a significant part of the $1 million raised for the initiative.

That has allowed the campaign to hire professional signature gatherers to help collect the 700,000 signatures needed to qualify the constitutional amendment for the ballot, said Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Protectmarriage.com, which is sponsoring the amendment. 

So now this prize bigot, after forcibly divorcing thousands of same sex couples in California, is having himself a messy divorce.  Sweet.  I hope your wife drags you over a bed of hot nails Doug.  I hope she makes your life a living hell.  And if you ever find yourself wondering why your private life has become so much fun and games for so many total strangers who don’t know you from Adam, go ask the jackass you see every morning in the bathroom mirror who it was that turned marriage into a scorched earth battleground and see if he doesn’t laugh in your face like I’m laughing in your face.

So it has led to This…

Town hall disruptions around the country have led to some outbreaks of violence. Unions participating in town halls have received death threats. At an event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) last week, the threat of violence led her aides to call the police after one attendee dropped a gun. 

And now…Oh look…someone was found toting a gun where President Obama is scheduled to speak …

MSNBC just aired footage of the crowd gathering at the Obama town hall meeting on health care that’s supposed to start later today in New Hampshire and pointed out one man in a group holding protest signs with a gun in a holster on his hip. Apparently not a law officer, but a civilian.

If some nutcase shoots the president this nation will know full well that it was Fox News and all the other tentacles of the republican party noise machine, who incited it.  They’ve been screaming for months now that President Obama wasn’t born in America, isn’t legally president of the United States, is secretly a Muslim, is a socialist-fascist tyrant who wants to shovel senior citizens into death camps.  This is hatemongering rhetoric that has been winked and nodded at by the party leadership, when they haven’t been excusing it outright.  It isn’t just that the extremist fringe has taken over.  The party leadership aren’t nutcases, just consumed with bringing down a democratic president.  If they have to bring down America in the process too, they’re fine with it.  They Know What They’re Doing.   They are republicans first and Americans second.  If this president is killed by the hysteria they have been cynically whipping up, the nation will hold them responsible.  There will Never be another republican president, let alone a republican congress, if the worst happens now.

They need to step back from the edge.  Now.  Or face the judgement of the nation, and the world, and history.

Last week the APA released its report on ex-gay therapy, to a somewhat muted response from the charlatans of the ex-gay political machine.  Oh yes…we’re so very happy that the APA acknowledges that a patient’s religious needs must be taken into account, they said, politely skimming over the overwhelming evidence that trying to force gay people into straight jackets harms them deeply.  You had to expect they wouldn’t leave it at that.

Now comes the "final" release of the Jones and Yarhouse "study" of ex-gay "therapy"…touted in that well known scientific peer reviewed publication, the Baptist Press…

Study: Ex-gay ministry has 53 percent success rate

Sure it does.  You read through the brief article for a while and, of course, you see little nuggets like this one pop out at you:

Jones expressed frustration that the APA task force didn’t take their 2007 study seriously.

"They selectively apply rigorous scientific standards," he said…

Yes.  Of course.  It’s all a consperacy of the scientists to further the militant homosexual agenda.  Oh…have I meantioned that Exodus paid Jones and Yarhouse for their labors?  Naturally that didn’t affect their scientific rigorousity I’m sure.

Or…not…

While Jones and Yarhouse’s study appears to be very well designed, it quickly falls apart on execution. The sample size was disappointingly small, too small for an effective retrospective study. They told a reporter from Christianity Today that they had hoped to recruit some three hundred participants, but they found “many Exodus ministries mysteriously uncooperative.” They only wound up with 98 at the beginning of the study (72 men and 26 women), a population they describe as “respectably large.” Yet it is half the size of Spitzer’s 2003 study.

Jones and Yarhouse wanted to limit their study’s participants to those who were in their first year of ex-gay ministry. But when they found that they were having trouble getting enough people to participate (they only found 57 subject who met this criteria), they expanded their study to include 41 subjects who had been involved in ex-gay ministries for between one to three years. The participants who had been in ex-gay ministries for less than a year are referred to as “Phase 1″ subpopulation, and the 41 who were added to increase the sample size were labeled the “Phase 2″ subpopulation.

This poses two critically important problems. First, we just saw Jones and Yarhouse explain that the whole reason they did a prospective study was to reduce the faulty memories of “change experiences that happened in their pasts” — errors which can occur when asking people to go back as far as three years to assess their beginning points on the Kinsey and Shively-DeCecco scales. This was the very problem that Jones and Yarhouse hoped to avoid in designing a prospective longitudinal study, but in the end nearly half of their results ended up being based on retrospective responses.

-Jim Burroway, Box Turtle Bulletin,  September 17th, 2007 – A Preliminary Review of Jones and Yarhouse’s "Ex-Gay? A Longitudinal Study"

[Emphasis mine] So basically their data was corrupted by the same half-assed sloppiness of the Spitzer study.  Oh but wait…it gets better.  Again from Burroway…

Whenever a longitudinal study is being conducted over a period of several years, there are always dropouts along the way. This is common and to be expected. That makes it all the more important to begin the study with a large population. Unfortunately, this one wasn’t terribly large to begin with; it started out at less than half the size of Spitzer’s 2003 study. Jones and Yarhouse report that:

Over time, our sample eroded from 98 subjects at our initial Time 1 assessment to 85 at Time 2 and 73 at Time 3, which is a Time 1 to Time 3 retention rate of 74.5%. This retention rate compares favorable to that of the best “gold standard” longitudinal studies. For example, the widely respected and amply funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (or Add Health study reported a retention rate from Time 1 to Time 3 of 73% for their enormous sample.

The Add Health Study Jones and Yarhouse cite began with 20,745 in 1996, ending with 15,170 during Wave 3 in 2001-2002. But this retention rate of 73% was spread over some 5-6 years, not the three to four years of Jones and Yarhouse’s study.

What’s more, the Add Health study undertook a rigorous investigation of their dropouts (PDF: 228KB/17 pages) and concluded that the dropouts affected their results by less than 1 percent. Jones and Yarhouse didn’t assess the impact of their dropouts, but they did say this:

We know from direct conversation that a few subjects decided to accept gay identity and did not believe that we would honestly report data on their experience. On the other hand, we know from direct conversations that we lost other subjects who believed themselves healed of all homosexual inclinations and who withdrew from the study because continued participation reminded them of the very negative experiences they had had as homosexuals. Generally speaking, as is typical, we lost subjects for unknown reasons.

Remember, Jones and Yarhouse described those “experiencing difficulty with change would be likely to get frustrated or discouraged early on and drop out of the change process.” And so assessing the dropouts becomes critically important, because unlike the Add Health study, the very reason for dropping out of this study may have direct bearing on both questions the study was designed to address: Do people change, and are they harmed by the process? With as much as a quarter of the initial population dropping out potentially for reasons directly related to the study’s questions, this missing analysis represents a likely critical failure, one which could potentially invalidate the study’s conclusions.

[Emphasis mine] Harm…what harm?  We didn’t speak to anyone who was harmed…

But look a tad more closely at what Jones and Yarhouse "know"…

On the other hand, we know from direct conversations that we lost other subjects who believed themselves healed of all homosexual inclinations and who withdrew from the study because continued participation reminded them of the very negative experiences they had had as homosexuals.

Healed.  Healed.  They believed themselves healed.  Not cured.  Not changed.  But…healed.  This is the language of religion, not science.  And now you know where Jones and Yarhouse were coming from, and why they were good with allowing data into their study that could only weaken it from a scientific point of view. 

It didn’t matter.  They needed bodies to get a big enough sample size that they could plausibly go on with it and give the kook pews something they could wave around and claim that scientists were conspiring against them on behalf of the godless homosexual menace.  They would have known going into it, that the APA would regard their study as flawed because they engineered the flaws into it themselves.  Anyone who was serious about it would have gone back to their funding and told them they couldn’t do it without more first year subjects (a lot more), and more participation from the drop-outs.  But they kept on with it anyway.  Because knowing whether or not ex-gay therapy works wasn’t the point.  Knowing whether or not it harms the very people it purports to help wasn’t the point.  Having something to wave back at the APA was the point.  That promise that they would report the results whether or not they embarrassed Exodus was as empty as the promise that "change is possible".   Neither one had a money back guarantee.

[Update...]  Yarhouse is identified Here, as an evangelical psychologist and graduate of Regent University.  Regent is Pat Robertson’s baby.  This man is as likely to be objective about ex-gay therapy as he is to be a flying pig.   Jones is of Wheaton College, which is described by The Princeton Review’s Best 351 Colleges thusly: "If the integration of faith and learning is what you want out of a college, Wheaton is arguably the best school in the nation with a Christ-based worldview."   Well this team really looks like a couple of objective researchers to me…

[Update again...]  Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin goes another round with this "study"…finds it not too much different from the previous round…

In short, the Jones and Yarhouse study was funded and fully supported by Exodus and conducted by two researchers who were avid supporters of ex-gay ministries. They wanted to study 300 participants, but after more than a year, they could only find 57 willing to participate. They then changed the rules for acceptance in order to increase the total to 98. After following this sample for 4 years, 25 dropped out. Of the remainder, only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Another 17 decided that a lifetime of celibacy was good enough.

Good enough for the Baptist Press!

You hear some folks bellyache about those "Gay Studies" curriculums in various colleges and universities.  If they’re not complaining that they’re utterly worthless exercises in pointless "diversity", they’re insinuating that the courses couldn’t be about anything but how to have gay sex. 

I’ve never gone through one of these curriculums myself, but if the vast treasure trove of gay history that’s out there is any measure, a Gay Studies course isn’t just a nice idea for promoting diversity, it’s an important part of the human story.  Particularly here in America, where gay citizens have been a punching bag, a handy scarecrow, for every hysteria that’s ever swept through the country.  Case in point, the red scare of the 1950s.

I’m only part way into David K. Johnson’s The Lavender Scare, and already its challenging some of my bedrock views of what happened to my country during the so-called McCarthy era.  Far from being merely a sideshow to the communist witch hunts of the 1950s, the purges of gay Americans were central to it.  And…surprise, surprise, the engine for it all was republican hunger for political power.

Right at the beginning of the book, Johnson describes, using newspaper accounts of the time, interviews, and newly declassified documents, how the republicans in the late 1940s, out of power since Hoover brought on the great depression, saw the issue of homosexuals in government as a useful weapon against the party in power. 

They orchestrated a hearing in which they pressed the secretary of state for information about communists in the state department.  But it was a game of tag.  In the process of defending themselves against the republican charge that they had allowed communists to get and hold jobs in the state department, the democrats described how they were diligently ferreting out "security risks".  Far from being lax said the democrats, they’d uncovered and removed 91 "security risks" from the state department.

Which gave the republicans an opening to press them for details.  How many of those were communists?  It was a question the republicans already knew the answer to, because they’d had all the details in a closed door hearing previously.  What they wanted was to get it out in the open.  And the democrats, backed into a corner and not wanting to leave it hanging out there that they’d let so many communists into the state department when they hadn’t actually, said, that in fact none of them were communists, nobody had been let go from the state department for disloyalty.  The 91 people fired were not accused of being traitors.  Just…you know…security risks.  Pressed further they admitted that these people had all been fired because they were homosexuals.

That was what the republicans wanted to hear, and get into the papers.  Not a communist threat, but a lavender one.  Why?  Because it was felt that the moral issue played even better against the democrat’s base…working class and poor Americans, then the communist threat did.  In other words, it made a great wedge issue against the democrats.  And right from the beginning, when Joe McCarthy began waving around his baseless claims of a vast communist conspiracy lurking in the federal government, some republicans…even in his own state…were counseling him to downplay the communist thing and play up the morals charges more, because for one thing they actually were finding homosexuals working in government agencies, but mostly because it made the voters in the democrat’s base even angrier.

McCarthy of course, didn’t take that advise.  He pressed on with his communist bogyman and the question echoed in the committee chambers of capital hill, are you now, or have you ever been a communist?  But while McCarthy was busy stirring up the Communist Menace and getting headlines, the republican party was busy stirring up the Homosexual Menace and a great purge began which…ironically…led to the formation of the first gay rights groups as gay people began to get tired of being kicked around and started pushing back.

Later, during the black civil rights movement, the republicans would go on to exploit white working class racial fears against the democrats in exactly the same way.  But here, even as far back as the late 1940s, you can see them using the Homosexual Menace as a tool to divide and weaken the democrats.  Because accusing the democrats of tolerating homosexuality worked even better then nearly anything else the republicans could throw at them…even communism.  And it wouldn’t stop working, until we gay Americans, having had enough of it, took to the streets in defense of our lives.

You want to know why it’s so damn important that we make a big deal out of our sexual orientation?  Why we don’t just quietly "leave it in the bedroom where it belongs"…?  This is why.  Because our lives were turned into cannon fodder for the power dreams of politicians and that needs to stop.  This country needs to look…really look…at the character of those loud voices bearing moral crusades, waving around scarecrows that have their neighbor’s faces on them.

The moral rot that is on plain view every night on Fox News and in the many health care "town halls" going on all across the country…in the "birthers" and the "deathers"…it isn’t new.  Not at all.  What’s different now is the gutter that all those country club republicans began playing to back in the Truman years has taken over, and they have their own voice now in the national news media.  And you need to understand this: those country club republicans would be fine, even with that, if it could keep them in power.

Perhaps you could see this just as clearly from looking at the history of race relations in America, and republican party race baiting.  But the history of the struggle of gay Americans for equality and justice is American history too, and you really see what the republican crusade for "morality" and "family values" is made of when you study it.

[Edited a tad...]

Via Sullivan…a handy little snapshot of the state of the Union…

As the GOP declines in popularity, Fox News gains audience. Or in other words, as reality presses closer in, that subset of the American population who never saw a fact they couldn’t look right in the face and deny, is cocooning.  Surprise, surprise.

What was once a cultural divide has become a chasm, bigger, and vastly more dangerous then anything the "generation gap" of the 1960s could have produced.  Again, from Sullivan…

A reader writes:

I just want to share a sad story with you. Tonight I was at my regular Friday night AA meeting in LA that I have been attending for 18 years – I am a 48 year old woman. One of my oldest friends, a male with 30 years sobriety, is a Republican. I am a Democrat. Every week he talks politics with another like-minded friend. Tonight he arrived a bit later than usual, so as I gave him a hug, I said, "Thank goodness you arrived because I am sure Betty* (name changed) did not want to discuss politics with me!"

He then turned around and started screaming at me. I was so taken aback, I didn’t even know what he was screaming about at first. When I finally tuned in, he was yelling that Obama "sent the SEIU thugs to beat up the senior citizens" protesting at the health-care town hall meetings and that Obama had instructed the SEIU "if they come at you, you go at them twice as hard."

When I tried to reasonably protest this statement, he just spewed forth a tirade of vile invectives.

We were outside and there were about 30 people milling about. I was shocked, embarrassed and literally frozen in place. I managed to turn and walk away. This is a man I have known and respected for the entire length of my sobriety. I am fairly certain this friendship is over. Reasonable discourse is over. The lies and hate spread by the right-wing have won. As a side note, his wife, who is one of my best friends would not talk to me for over a month after the election in November. I am just heartbroken. Sorry, I know this is not the most well-written account, but I am so shaken, I can barely wrap my head around it.

I have an acquaintance…someone I used to call "friend" but simply cannot anymore…who nonetheless calls periodically.  I wrote of my frustrations about that Here.  Last time he called I ended the conversation when he started going on about how the new supreme court justice Sotomayor was a racist.  Next time he calls I’ll have a simple question ready for him…

Do you think President Obama was born here in the United States?

End of story.  Life is short.  The American Dream is still beautiful and I believe in it and you don’t anymore.  There is are lot of things Americans need to discuss with one another and hash out together and the politics of life in a democracy is you have to have those discussions and maybe even a few major arguments and in the end you compromise and you hold a vote and you get on with it.  But you’re not there anymore.  You’re somewhere on the dark side of the moon where not even light can penetrate.   We can’t talk anymore, and to have an America Americans need to be able to talk with each other and you want to shut down the talking so everyone can listen to you scream about nothing for as long as you have the breath to scream about it.  Fine.  The conversation is shut down…with you.  I’ll talk it out with anyone who has a gripe about what I think or what I believe, no matter how angry they are…but not with a Fox News crack addict.  You drag yourself out of that gutter and maybe I will.  But not before.

Via Sullivan…this little nugget from the front lines from Daily KOS…

It is, in short, a movement made up of the enfranchised and enabled; people who have gained every benefit from the politics of America and yet who feel in their very bones that they are the oppressed ones, the ones who have nothing left to lose, so rapidly is America falling away from them. It is rare to run across any movement so deeply angry — or more to the point, a movement which explicitly celebrates anger as the primary mission of their activism. They are not willing to listen to any factual evidence that contradicts their own beliefs in whatever dark conspiracies have been peddled to them; they have in fact made it their publicly proclaimed mission to block any such explanations from even being attempted.

This could be a description of the anti-gay movement in America ever since Anita Bryant.  Enfranchised and enabled?  Check.  They have every right that their gay neighbors are fighting for.  Every.  Right.  Feeling in their very bones that they are the oppressed ones?  Check.  It’s a constant refrain.  Militant homosexuals are oppressing them.  Somehow.  But don’t ask how exactly because all you’ll get are either vague claims that their "deeply held religious beliefs" are being trampled on every time they’re told to leave gay people alone, or if not that, then outright lies. Remember this?

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.

We’re being oppressed…by having to live by the same rules everyone else does…

Not willing to listen to any factual evidence that contradicts their own beliefs?  Check.  Not only are they not willing to listen to the facts, they’ve built a multi-million dollar industry with dozens of front groups whose only job is to churn out one lie after another about gay people which they insist everyone else accept as holy writ, whereas any actual science is regarded as pro-homo propaganda.  Publicly proclaimed their mission to block any actual facts from coming to light?  Check.  From keeping honest, factual information about sexual orientation out of schools, to keeping it out of public libraries, to keeping it off of television, there is no public space that the facts about homosexuality and sexual orientation can appear that they have not vigorously…and I mean vigorously…worked to shut it down.

This Daily KOS post could have been written years ago, decades even, about about the anti-gay culture warriors.  But it isn’t about the fight over gay rights.  It’s about the struggle for America…

The Rise of A Postmodern Racist Movement?

There seems little question that something odd is going on with the healthcare debate. Foremost is the ridiculous extent to which the debate has been entirely commandeered by flagrant, outright lies — things about euthanasia, and death panels, and the like, abject propaganda peddled directly from House and Senate offices. We have had lying in our discourse since the beginning of that discourse, but it has been a long while since the fabrications have been so blatant, so absolutely without even the smallest grain of truth. To take a Republican-sponsored healthcare provision that rather innocently and uncontroversially extends insurance coverage to those that want to create their own living wills and turn it into a declaration that the government will decide every five years whether or not you should be euthanized is something out of the Protocols, or out of Saddam’s Iraq, or a mimicry of the worst and most stupid and most absurd of North Korean propaganda towards their own citizens.

Likewise, the explicit instruction to protestors not to debate, but to aggressively attempt to shut down the meetings entirely — not normal. It is perhaps the best possible approach for insurance lobbyists to take, if their goal is to protect the profits of their industry — but it is still not normal. We have always had the fringes of such speech, but I cannot recall a time it has been so celebrated as the formal solution to political debate. Certainly not by a major political party, coupled with the majority of their most popular pundits and talking heads, coupled again to lobbyist groups with long histories of corporate astroturfing. And the proud shuffling just-up-to-the-line-of-violence, right in the very faces of their own representatives of Congress, requiring police protection in order to escort those elected representatives safely from the meetings — that part is new. That part is not normal.

It’s been normal in the battle for gay rights for decades now…you’re only just now noticing it, because they’ve moved beyond us.  But you have to understand this: you’ve always been the target too.  A free, just, and proud America has always been their target.  The America of liberty and justice for all has always been their target.  Because in that America, they’re then just a bunch of ignorant runts, resentful that the universe doesn’t revolve around them, resentful of everything fine and noble human beings can be, they they never will because it’s too much work.

You haven’t seen the hate like your gay neighbors have seen it.  Now you are.  Surprised?  Shocked?  Just wait until you realize, really realize, that there is no bottom there. 

One thing to keep in mind is that race, and racism, have rarely ever acted alone. One of the best points that Phillip Dray makes in his classic history of lynching is that epidemics of lynching often coincided, not just with an expansion of black rights, but with increased labor mobility among white women. So fear of white women, and their independence, as well as fear of sexual competition, all worked in concert. It wasn’t simply "I hate niggers" — it never is. It was "I don’t much like black people, and prices are going up, and I have to let my wife work, so I can survive, and I’m scared she won’t stay with me if she’s not dependent on me and I’d die if she left me for a black guy." Or some such.

Ditto for the Civil Rights Movement. It wasn’t just racism — it was class also. In the South you had this black middle class that always had to be deferential to the most poorest white person in the world. The prospect of losing that deference, of already being lower than the white aristocracy and now also being lower than a class of blacks too, wreaked havoc.

…

We’ve got governors yelling about secession, and major politicians peddling stories of imminent threats to your family and your children by the very government they are supposedly a part of, and every day the town hall footage just seems to look more and more like a modernized version of the mob attacks against citizens and legislators during old anti-desegregation rallies, and we don’t need to say "sooner or later someone will be shot" because it has already happened, and multiple times, and in truth it never really left us, these last fifty years.

It wasn’t about desegregation.  It wasn’t about feminism.  It wasn’t about gay rights.  Those were just the flashpoints…the excuses.  It wasn’t about any of those things.  Not ever.  Think about the other major event of the last half of the 20th century…the cold war.  Think about the Iron Curtain.  Think about the Berlin Wall.  Think about all those people who were shot, trying to get over it to freedom.  Think about what was going through the minds of the people who gave the order to shoot and kill those wall climbers.  What this has always been about: The Gutter…resentful, hating everyone who ever managed to rise above them, fearful of being left alone in the gutter, afraid of the day when the walls all fall down and everyone who can leaves them behind and all they’ll have is each other to look at, and to blame.

…the Japanese ones anyway.

Niigata Bust Pudding from Japan

Nothing more appropriate for our blog than sexy things you can eat. Japanese brand Niigata makes a pudding packaged inside a pair of tits with some caramel dipping sauce. YUHMM

I’m guessing the pudding tastes like spackling compound so they packaged it in a cup that looks like a female’s breast on the theory that sex can sell anything, even pudding that tastes like spackling compound.  But who knows…maybe it’s perfectly decent pudding and some guys just like having it served to them in little tit shaped cups.  I’m still trying to figure out that inflatable tits in a box for boys thing…

If the anti-gay petition drive in Washington State fails due to too many invalid signatures, the sweet justice of it might be that their own anti-gay base believed the same signature gathering lies they were telling everyone else.  This from The Seattle PI blog:

Signature error rate too high for anti-gay referendum

The numbers for Thursday’s count showed 6,483 checked and 935 rejected, for a cumulative daily error rate of 14.42 percent, said secretary of state spokesman Dave Ammons.

…and this from the comments:

I think the lying on the part of supporters may have hurt them with the error rate.

Imagine someone in Kent waddling up to the Walmart and encountering someone with a petition to "repeal domestic partnerships for gays." They sign it and go in for a triple pounder with cheese before buying lead-filled Chinese crap for their kids.

Then 5 weeks later, they role out of their SUV at the Olive Garden and see someone with a petition to "ban same sex marriage." They go ahead and sign it, not realizing that it’s the same one they signed 5 weeks ago because the paid petition gatherer lied to them.

Ta da—duplicate signatures.

…it would be sweet, sweet justice.