A Lesbian's View

Gay Rights Are Civil Rights

2009-09-30T03:30:00.001-04:00

Gay Rights Are Civil Rights
by: Dr. Maura J. Cullen

(This article is from ArticleCity.com and is written by Dr. Maura J. Cullen)

Our biggest tragedy as a country was the enslavement of Black people who were stolen from their native lands and forced into slavery. In order to end this tyranny, courageous people risked their own lives in what has become known as the Civil Rights Movement. This movement was forged on the backs of People of Color and has become a force that has changed the face of America. Because of its success it now serves as a powerful model for every civil rights movement that followed.

There is a saying that history repeats itself and without a doubt that is what is currently taking place in this country with the gay rights movement. People who supported slavery, denied white women and people of color the right to vote, were all on the wrong side of history by denying people’s basic human and civil rights. And today, there are many who are still on the wrong side of history by denying gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans basic civil rights.

We are governed, in theory, by a document that allows all citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and where all people are treated equal. Yet it is very apparent that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are exempt from these equal rights. That is how it is now, but not as it always will be, because as history demonstrates, justice will eventually prevail, but unfortunately it always takes a fight.

This country was founded on the premise of protecting the minority view, of allowing all voices to be heard and to provide equal rights for ALL Americans. Democracy has never been a majority rules proposition and nor should it be. Many fled to this country to escape religious persecution. Now, many of those very people’s ancestors are the same people persecuting gay Americans today.

Same-Sex Marriage

The religious-right has taken it upon themselves to be the torchbearers for denying equal rights to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. They assert that permitting same-sex marriage would jeopardize the institution of marriage. It is challenging to take this claim seriously given that heterosexuals have a divorce rate of close to 50%. You can’t blame that failure on gay people. In fact, it is hard to believe that same-sex couples could do any worse than their heterosexual counterparts in the marriage department.

As a lesbian couple, my wife Dawn and I were legally married in the great state of Massachusetts, which was the first state to permit same-sex marriage with all of the rights and benefits that go along with it. We have since moved to Maryland, a state that does not recognize nor permit same-sex marriage. As a result, we no longer have the rights that we had once experienced in Massachusetts including health care. We are now once again relegated to second-class status.

Yet history is repeating itself. Just as same-sex couples are now denied the right to marry in most states, there was another group of people in our history as a nation who were also denied the right to marry.

It was not until 1967 that inter-racial marriage was legalized. As a result of the case of Loving v Virginia, all race-based legal restriction on marriage were prohibited. Opponents believed inter-racial marriages to be repugnant, abhorrent and an attack on morality. Sound familiar?

In 2006, South Africa became the 5th country to legalize same-sex marriage. This is impressive given apartheid was legal until 1994 and where the impact of unequal treatment is still apparent today. South Africa has done what the United States has yet to fully grasp; they have taken a lesson from their own history and are determined not to repeat that painful chapter by imposing injustice on a different group of people.

Military—Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Until the 1954 decision of Brown v The Board of Education, legal segregation existed in the U.S. Military. Black soldiers have participated and died in every war this country has fought and has done so with distinction.

The 1994 passage of the Clinton’s administration of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

To date, over 12,500 gay and lesbian soldiers have been forced out of the military as a result of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. These soldiers have served with distinction. They are willing to lay down their lives to bring democracy to other countries, yet they are denied equal treatment in their own. Military men and women have been trained to handle all situations and yet we have dismissed 12,500 well-trained soldiers because some of the heterosexual soldiers are afraid they may make a pass at them? The United States military is over-taxed with our involvement in so many regions of the world and we cannot afford to lose so many qualified and talented people.

It is time that we as a country learn from our past mistakes. These mistakes have taken a huge toll on all of us. Some history does not bear repeating.

About The Author

Dr. Maura Cullen is the author of the bestselling book "35 Dumb Things Well-Intended People Say: Surprising Things We Say That Widen the Diversity Gap". She is a highly-acclaimed diversity trainer who has educated and inspired people worldwide in over 400 universities and organizations on how to be more inclusive and authentic when communicating with others. With over 25 years of experience as a keynote speaker and her doctorate in Social Justice & Diversity Education from the University of Massachusetts , she is widely considered one of the nation's foremost authorities of diversity issues today. Visit http://www.TheDiversitySpeaker.com

Proposition 8 Upheld In California

2009-05-26T18:22:00.003-04:00

I'm dissappointed to say the least that the California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8 in California today. But it isn't quite the victory that the Conservative and Religious right think it is. Reading through the decision comments it becomes apparent that the Justices were not repealing a gay couples rights as a married couple in California, but simply the ability to call their union a marriage.

I have to tell you, that if that were the case federally, I wouldn't care what they called my union with my partner. Give me the same rights and protections under the law (including the tax laws), and you can have your claim to the term marriage. I'll take Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, whatever. It's the rights that are conveyed by the union, not what it's called. That clearly was protected by the Justices comments.

Tired Old Arguments

2009-05-11T08:42:00.003-04:00

I was cruising around the internet today, reading my favorite blogs, and then heading over to facebook to catch up with friends. I clicked on the twitter application link there and was browsing through topics on their page, and found this one below. I was in a pretty good mood today. I had spent a great weekend at home with my partner, celebrated Mother's day with my Mom, gone fishing and actually caught fish! Then, I read this thread on twitter. Not is such a good mood anymore. Disgusted actually. You'll just have to read it for yourself, and you'll see what I mean. Post after post after post of hatefull, prejudiced, angry statements back and forth between "Christians", and "Homosexuals". The same usual arguments, that start out sounding caring and disintegrate into inflamed and agitated statements when no one agrees with anyone else. Christians and Homosexuals.......Man, you're really screwed if you happen to be both.

Here's the link to the twitter discussion on facebook.

New friends at home

2008-10-13T06:27:00.000-04:00

I got to spend a little time at home this past summer, and had a great time watching two little birds working feverishly to build this nest, and then raise their family. It was built on the front porch, and when we would come in late at night, the parents would dive bomb us as we walked up onto the porch. The little ones stuck around for a while, and then were gone. I'm hoping they'll choose the same spot for a new home next year.

McCain throws in the towel on the Financial Crisis

2008-10-06T21:57:00.005-04:00

Senator McCain apparently realizes that he has nothing of any substance to add to the conversation in America about the financial crisis. He’s decided to just avoid the issue completely and try to distract the American voter with misleading adds that are just more of the same mud slinging he’s becoming known for.

The problem is, it’s hard to distract someone from the heat, when their hair is on fire. We’ve watched our retirement savings disappear, and been saddled with debt that it will take us years to pay off. Many of us are losing our jobs, or live in fear of it. The cost of living is going up, and the amount of money we’re bringing home is going down. People are losing their homes, and watching their single largest investments lose value as the housing market is flooded with foreclosed properties that no one can get a loan to purchase.

I’m sorry, but refusing to talk to me about this doesn’t make me feel any better about what you’re going to do to fix my problems. I have to admit though, that when Senator McCain was actually talking about the crisis, he wasn’t making me feel much better either. It was so apparent that he didn’t even realize that there was a crisis until late in the game, and then his response to it was to go to Washington and accomplish nothing.

If the best that you have to offer in the conversation about how to help this country crawl out of the pit we’ve been thrown into over the last eight years, is to point out to me that your opponent has a middle name that you don’t like, then perhaps just keeping your mouth shut and letting the people out there who actually understand the trouble that we’re in discuss the issues might not be such a bad idea. On that note, Senator McCain, I applaud your decision to just stop talking about the crisis. Since that is all that I really care about today as I watch my retirement savings go down every time the market opens, it keeps me from having to waste my time trying to listen to your ideas. After all, I can just look back at the past eight years and get a pretty good idea.

Vote Republican? Not a chance.

2008-03-03T05:14:00.002-05:00

Driving through town, I noticed a political poster for John McCain in the yard of someone that I know personally to be gay. Not just gay, but OUT gay. At first I thought it was probably put there by someone without my friend knowing it, so I gave him a call and was shocked to discover that he had put the sign up and was planning to vote for the republican candidate in the general election.

I just couldn’t believe it. I asked him why? Why would you even consider voting for ANYONE in the republican party if you are a gay American with any concerns for not just furthering equality, but maintaining the gains we have achieved? He told me that he was voting against the democratic party, more than voting for the republican party candidate and admitted that in truth, he knew very little about McCain’s views on equal rights for gays and lesbians, or gay marriage (although he assumed that he was no different from any of the other republicans and opposed it). His major voting concern was the economy, and he felt that the democrats gave too much of his money away to people who sat at home and didn’t work, or were here illegally. He wanted less social program spending and a hard lined approach to immigration reform.

When we hung up, it took me a long while to get past my disbelief and to focus on what he was saying. He wasn’t voting for the people that he knew would help him achieve personal freedoms, his main concerns lay lower in the list of essential human needs.

It’s my belief that people vote according to their perception of needs. If you’re hungry, poor, have no roof over your head, then you vote for the person who is going to help elevate you to a point where you get these basic needs met. Once those needs are met, you start focusing on your future needs, and who will help you meet those needs. When you think you have those needs met, you begin to focus on your personal freedoms and the things that you’d LIKE to have, but don’t need to survive.

For my friend, who had been impacted greatly by the economy, and by workers in our area who are here illegally taking jobs for much less pay, the questions of immigration and taxation were at the base of his needs list, overpowering his desire to have his relationship protected. But there is a problem with that thinking. What benefit do we as gays and lesbians get from tax reform that doesn’t recognize our relationships or our families? None.

We will still be taxed as singles even though we have been in relationships for years and have bought homes and have mortgages and bills just like the heterosexual neighbors do. We still won’t be able to claim the children of our partners, or to write off the medical expenses that we pay for these children, because our relationship with them isn’t recognized. We can’t write off the mortgage interest that we pay on the mortgage if the mortgage is in our partners name. Bottom line, the republican tax cuts aren’t helping us, because they don’t even recognize that we exist. If you’re an adult in a committed relationship with a home to maintain, working hard and making a decent living, then you’re still just a single person making too much money as far as the tax code is concerned so you get to pay more taxes so that the neighbors don’t have to. Why, because they have the benefit of marriage. You don’t.

The republicans want to keep it that way. At least the more progressive republicans want to keep it that way. The really conservative ones want to take away our rights to even have legal contracts that protect our finances and our health care decisions and take care of our need to protect our partners both financially and medically. They want to push us back into the closet, and out of their lives. They like the idea that we pay a disproportionate amount of money in taxes, because it means they don’t have to. It helps them, hurts us, and they love that idea.

I wish I had an answer for him on the immigration issue. He believes that deporting millions of illegal aliens is an option. Realistically, I just don’t. I don’t see that even being physically possible, so we need to work on a solution that is feasible. One that addresses the impact that these workers have on working Americans, and has a realistic chance of success. I don’t see that either party has a real answer yet, but can’t argue that my friends experience certainly justify his frustration and willingness to vote to relieve it.

For me, even the idea of voting for a candidate that courts the religious right is out of the question. Not just because I am gay, but because I hate the idea of any president sitting in the oval office, and giving one ounce of weight to the demands of someone like Dr. James Dobson, or Pat Robertson, or any other ultra conservative who thinks they have the right to define the values of an entire nation based on their own personal beliefs. If the republican party wants to align itself with these kinds of far right extremists, and will do anything to try to make them happy, then they are leaving ME out in the cold and certainly will never get my vote.

Both democratic candidates are right. It is time for change in this country. It’s time for people to be seen as individuals who have the right to live their lives according to their own values and beliefs within the constraints of the law. It’s time for religion to take it’s place in peoples personal lives, and to get out of political policy decisions where it has no place. It’s time that a persons actions be allowed to define them, and not their sexual orientation.

I can’t change my friends mind, he’s still going to vote for McCain. I’m just glad my vote will be there to cancel his out. But that’s what it’s all about. Two people standing on opposite sides of a fence, talking about how each of us thinks change needs to occur. In the end, we’ll still be friends, and one of us will have to buy the other dinner. Hope he can afford the seafood feast he’s going to be buying me when the democrats win in November!

Jane Rule - Dead at 76

2007-12-02T07:12:00.000-05:00

Jane Rule, the acclaimed author and lesbian, has died at the age of 76. There are news bites on the internet that far surpass anything that I could say about her, but I didn't want her passing to bo by without at least saying that I felt the loss. One of my favorite quotes is hers:

"If men really are turned on by all that awful underwear, leg and footwear, all that paint and headachy perfume, then maybe they should have been wearing it all along."

Here are links to some of the news bytes:
The London Free Press
Regional Leader-Post, Canada
Vancouver Sun
Now Toronto

Having an off Day!!

2007-11-11T13:17:00.000-05:00

There are some definite pro’s to making your living traveling from one place to the next, spending thirteen weeks, and then moving on to the next hospital. I’ve been able to see places I probably would have never seen. Made friends is places I didn’t think I would. Learned from Nurses all over the country. It’s great.

But for all the pro’s there are some definite draw backs. Not the least of which seems to be the effect that age has on your ability to adjust to a new place, a new climate, and a new schedule over and over again. I’m finding myself struggling with the beginnings of menopause, which I personally believe I am much to young for of course. I remember thinking that my Mother had to be exaggerating when she talked about how miserable the hot flashes she was having were. Now, I realize that my mother must have been understating their effects in an effort not to terrorize me because it’s MUCH worse than she let on. As a matter of fact, this is the most agonizing thing I have ever dealt with. To make it worse, I am in a new place, where no one knows me and I’m not comfortable sharing my physical status. So, I am certain that they are looking at my dripping wet hair and thinking that I am either about to have a massive heart attack or that I have some disgusting personal hygiene problem.

Add to the hot flashes and the night sweats the fact that my body is irritatingly less firm, and my skin has these interesting little brown spots popping up all over it. I suppose I should be grateful. They’re just age spots and not carcinoma’s. My period, which for decades was as regular as clockwork and little more than a slight irritation in my day to day life, is now a dreaded week long struggle to find time to run to the bathroom every hour and wonder if it is actually possible to bleed to death during your period.

It would at least be some comfort to be going through this at home, where I have friends and family that know me, and will understand. Where my partner can offer me the pity that only someone ten years your junior can offer you, because they don’t yet understand that what they are seeing is an inevitability that is racing towards them like a freight train. Where I can spend my days off snuggled up on the couch with my pets, who truly understand my need for unconditional love, and don’t seem to be staring at the age spots on my arms. Lastly, where my Mother is right down the street and I can ream her out for not warning that this was coming so that I could have had a complete hysterectomy, started on hormones long before this all started! Now, where’s that G-D bottle of advil?

Who are they lying to? Us? Or Themselves?

2007-11-08T18:13:00.000-05:00

There’s a repetitive theme out there that tries to explain why Gay and Lesbian couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married. It is used over and again as if the more often it were cast out into the waters, more likely it would get a bite. It’s an argument that on the surface sounds as if it comes from a sincere concern, but when applied equally to both sides of the argument about gay marriage, it falls apart pitifully and questions the validity of not only gay marriages, but many heterosexual marriages as well.

Eric Hogue is a radio talk show host, and a syndicated columnist. He also calls himself a “contemporary cultural pastor”. On Crosswalk.com today, a for profit religious corporations web site, he has an article posted that argues once again that same sex marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. He argues that marriage is not about spousal happiness, but about one thing. Rearing children. He makes the argument that marriage has historically been about that one thing, and not the mutual happiness of the two people who desire to marry.

Overlooking the fact that children raised in same sex families do just as well as children raised in heterosexual marriages and that adoption does indeed allow same sex couples to raise children who would otherwise have no family at all, he maintains that there is no validity to the joining of two same sex individuals because of two things. We can’t procreate and we can’t provide both a male and female role model.

I’m sure that it makes religious extremists feel better to say they are discriminating against other American’s because of concern for the well-being of children, than to admit that they just don’t want to grant the same rights and protections to that they enjoy to people who they see as different from themselves. But if you apply that concern to both sides of the issue, it just doesn’t hold water.

If marriage is all about procreation, then what about those tens of thousands of infertile couples in America? If they can’t procreate, should they not be allowed to marry. If marriage is to be defined not by love, but by a couples ability to have and raise children then what reason do those heterosexual couples who can’t have children have to get married? If children can’t be raised in a home that doesn’t contain both a male and a female role model, what about the vast number of children currently being raised in single parent families? Should those single parents have their children taken away from them because they weren’t able to make a heterosexual marriage work? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? It gets better. What about the elderly who can’t have children, or heterosexual couples who simply don’t want children?

My personal opinion is that the arguments they make are just sad attempts at hiding the truth from not us, but themselves. They don’t want to admit to themselves that they just don’t want to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, because they hate us. Deep down inside, they don’t want to share any of “their” rights with us because they don’t think we deserve to have them. They may say out loud that it isn’t hate or bigotry, but some altruistic concern for children. It makes you wonder who they are lying to. Is it to us, or to themselves, as a way of fooling themselves into believing that they aren’t denying the rights and protections of marriage to others simply because they don’t share their religious views? It doesn’t really matter who they are lying to, they’re the only ones who are buying the lies.

ENDA wins in the House

2007-11-07T21:58:00.000-05:00

Watching C-span on television isn’t exactly my idea of a good way to spend a rare day off. But today, I watched. Sitting on the edge of my seat as if I were at a real cliffhanger, when in reality I knew what the outcome would be. It wasn’t the outcome that I was waiting to hear, it was the path to get to the vote that I was so interested in.
In case you live in a cave and haven’t heard, the House of Representatives voted today to extend the nation’s employment discrimination protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans. While the bill was first introduced years ago, this is the first time that it has made it to the house floor, and it passed with ease. The bad news is that even though it passed with an overwhelming majority, even that majority might not be enough to see it become the law of the land. It still has to pass through a thinly divided senate, and then of course, there’s our fearless leader standing with his veto stamp. No doubt he is drooling at the opportunity stamp out any hopes of having our jobs protected by the same laws that protect his.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a survivor of southern discrimination against black Americans, spoke of how today’s vote would “break down more signs”, referring to how protesters in the 60’s helped to break down the “whites” and “blacks” signs of those times. He spoke out about how he had fought too hard to end discrimination, to vote against it now.
There were many speeches of support, and I was thankful for each of the brave congressional representatives that stood up in defense of our right to have our jobs protected from bigotry, misunderstanding, fear, and hate. Unfortunately the speech that gripped me the most, was by the bills biggest opposition, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind). He made a comment about how offended he felt to see his religion and his beliefs portrayed as bigoted and hate filled. He just doesn’t get it. It’s not “his” religion that is hate filled and bigoted, just the way “he” interprets and practices it.
His argument against the bill was so ridiculous to me, that I found it hard to believe that he could even stand there and make it without being embarrassed by it’s lack of merit. I mean really, a religious book store being prevented from refusing to hire, or being able to fire a gay, lesbian, or bisexual employee? That argument is supposed to justify not offering any of us protections?
What about the GLBT book store down the street. Guess what? It’s against the law for that owner to refuse to hire a conservative religious employee, or to fire them because of their religious views. It’s an argument that he wants to use, but only if he’s allowed to define the circumstances under which it’s applied.
The world is changing, and the evangelical religious right is grasping at straws to try and maintain some control over the evolution of our society. It’s not going to work, it may take time for the change to happen, but it will happen just the same. Today, the US House of Representatives took a bold step in that direction, and they did it at the request of a majority of Americans. That majority believes that gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans deserve to be treated equally. Religion and personal beliefs are a choice. It’s a choice that is protected by law and rightfully so. It is not something that a minority group can dictate to the rest of the world, and punitively enforce.
If the bill passes the Senate, no doubt Bush will Veto it and the fight to override that veto will be a difficult one that we may not win. But this bill won’t go away. Another President is coming. A new generation is waiting in the wings to stand up and tell the religious right that they don’t want to be bullied into accepting their narrow minded, bigoted, discriminatory, and yes – hateful ideas.

More and More Hipocracy in the GOP Ranks!

2007-10-31T07:51:00.000-04:00

If you've never visited Pam's Hous Blend blog, you're really missing one of the best LGBT blogs there is. I read it every day and this morning Pam has a fantastic post about ANOTHER GOP politician, who by the way voted against gay marriage and protecting gay jobs, that was caught with his pants down - so to speak.

Check out her post here.

Obama disregards the LGBT community to reach out to Black Voters

2007-10-27T16:01:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama's decision to give Donnie McClurkin a public stage only goes to prove that Obama, like so many other candidates, is willing to look the other way when it comes to anti-gay rhetoric if it will help him win the democratic nomination. Donnie McClurkin is a Gospel singer who has publicly stated he believes that being gay is a choice, and that he "once involved with those desires and those thoughts", but believes that he was able to overcome them through prayer.

Once again, the LGBT community is being pushed aside in the political game to pander to ANOTHER religious group in order to get votes. It's like watching an old rerun on TV, only this time it's in color. Instead of the Republicans pandering to the religious right, it's a democrat pandering to churches in the black community. It feels like we're watching someone talking out of both sides of their head. To us, he says that he wants to see change, and to help the LGBT community in their quest to have their relationships recognized through civil partnerships. To them, he puts anti-gay performers on the stage. Then he wants to reassure us that he doesn't agree with McClurkin's views.

It's a tiring, pathetic observation about politics and politicians. Say anything, do anything, promise anything - as long as you can distance yourself from it later if you have to. The one thing that many of us want more than anything right now in any candidate, is someone that we can trust not to lie to us. We've been lied to for almost seven years now, and we're tired of it. Obama isn't fostering a lot of trust with his latest actions. It's just more of the same old game, not change.

John Rich of "Big and Rich" Voices his Opposition to Gay Marriage

2007-10-27T07:51:00.000-04:00

In an interview with The Tennessean, John Rich of the country music duo of "Big and Rich" voiced his opposition to gay marriage, and his support for Senator Fred Thompson. He went further to say that if you were going to legalize gay marriage, you would have to also legalize other "unsavory" things. He sites his upbringing, and his preacher, as the basis for his opinions. Later, he retracted his statement and made an apology:

“My earlier comments on same-sex marriage don’t reflect my full views on the broader issues regarding tolerance and the treatment of gays and lesbians in our society. I apologize for that and wish to state clearly my views.

I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe that intolerance, bigotry and hatred are wrong. People should be judged based on their merits, not on their sexual orientation. We are all children of God and should be valued and respected.”

I find it very comical, that in the same statement that he voices his own intolerance and bigotry, he then states that he thinks intolerance and bigotry are wrong. I'm sorry John, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are TOLERANT and are not a BIGOT, and DO NOT believe that your personal views are more important than someone else's right to protections and the pursuit of happiness in this country or you ARE a Bigot, and You ARE intolerant.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, you just have to realize that forcing your own religiously based views on others who do not share them means you don't get to call yourself tolerant, or deny being a bigot. You think that you deserve rights that should be withheld from us, because you believe that you are somehow better than us. More right. More Christian. More something. From our side of the fence, listening to your words, you sir sound just like a hateful intolerant bigot.

More Genetic Proof

2007-10-26T14:22:00.000-04:00

Erik Jorgensen, the Scientific Director at the Brain Institute has been quoted as saying that a recent experiment where a gene in the brain of a female worm was "activated" causing the worm to become attracted to other female worms, may be evidence that sexual orientation is genetically based. Here is a link to the Story

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Utah_Scientists_Create_Lesbian_Worms_09987.html

Bull Bash - Gay Bashing

2007-10-16T23:37:00.000-04:00

My partner and I went to the CBR Bull Bash in Longview, TX last weekend. The Bull Bash is similar to a rodeo, but with only one event - Bull Riding. For those of us in the LGBT community that live out here in the country, the Rodeo is something almost all of us are familiar with. If you lived here all your life, you would be to. You would have grown up going to FFA meetings and stock shows instead of Friday night football games. My partner went to a high school that was so fall they couldn't field a football team. You better bet they had a rodeo team though, and everyone wanted to be on it.

We had been looking forward to the Bull Bash all year long. My partner in particular is a huge fan of the PBR (Professional Bull Riders) and the CBR (Championship Bull Riders) and never misses a late night chance to see them on TV. We went to the Longview Fairgrounds early to get a good seat, bought our corny dogs, and were excited about having a great night in cool weather watching 45 Bull Riders compete for top honors.

A big part of the show is the barrel man. This is a guy dressed in a clowns outfit for the most part, who entertains the crowd in between rides. On this night, the barrel man was really very funny, and I found myself laughing out loud when he danced around on the dirt floor of the arena. But then he started making comments about a man "staring" at him while he was dancing. He continued to make comments about this fictitious man in the audience who was "staring" at him, and pretty soon I could hear comments from some of the cowboys sitting around me. Comments like "I'd have to gut that S.O.B." and "He needs to hop that fence and kick that fags ass".

The man out in the arena's comments weren't all that offensive, but what they elicited was offensive, and a little frightening. When he made one last mention of his imaginary admirer, I guess the woman sitting next to me could see the disgust on my face because she put her hand on my knee and smiled, then said "Don't worry about that, we're not all that ignorant." I smiled back at her, then turned away quickly when I noticed the scowl on the man sitting next to hers face. Still, I appreciated her comment. Then I realized that for her to make it, we had to be sticking out like sore thumbs as the only to lesbian's stupid enough to think we could go sit in the middle of a bunch of cowboys and be ourselves, safely.

We left before the Bash was over, I still don't know who won. It was a dramatic learning experience for me though, when I realized that accepting even a little bit of bashing even when meant as a joke, leads to other less harmless voices feeling free to spew their hate filled comments. I won't be supporting the CBR by going to any more of their functions, or watching them on TV now. My partner probably will, she's just that much of a fan. She also tends to believe that people don't really mean some of the hurtful things they say. She thinks it's "just talk" and it doesn't mean anything unless it's directed right at you. I guess that means that if I say the ignorant yahoo in clown make up couldn't attract a gay man if his life depended on it, it's okay as long as I say it behind his back and without meaning it in a malicious sense? I mean, I was just joking. Just trying to be entertaining to what I perceived to be my audience. That makes it okay, right?

I don't think so.

There's a fox in the hen house - AGAIN !

2007-10-15T22:33:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I find it difficult to even relate to lesbians who live in well populated metropolitan areas. I live in a very rural area of east Texas, where there is NO lesbian or gay public presence to speak of. If you want to go to a pride parade, you can drive 130 miles to Dallas and catch one. If you want to go to a lesbian bar - same drive. There is ONE gay bar only 60 miles away, but it's predominantly for gay men. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that it's there. I love the drag show, and watching the never ending stream of straight cowboys coming in to "see what's going on behind the big red doors" is pretty funny sometimes. Still, there aren't many women there, and the ones that ARE there, are there ALL THE TIME. Know what I mean?

If there was one benefit to being a lesbian in such an out of the way, ultra conservative, right wing place - it's the closeness you develope with other lesbians living in your area. We develope very tight knit, almost family like, groups of friends. We have these incredible gatherings where we all get the chance to share our lives, loves, and happenings with each other. There's a problem with these tight little groups though. I call it the "fox in the hen house" problem. When you're entire lesbian community can fit into one living room, and you're in a committed relstionship, having a couple break up or having a new "single" lesbian enter the mix can be disturbing. It can be especially disturbing if the group consists mainly of coupled lesbians.

I mean, think about it for a minute. If everyone is coupled up, and suddenly you find yourself "single" again. Who the hell do you flirt with? Every lesbian you know is in this room, or around the same camp fire. Each one is your friend, and is holding ANOTHER one of your friends hands. Or worse, you've already dated everyone in the room at least once, maybe twice. It's not like you can run across town to the bar, or the local GLBT outreach center, and hook up with someone new and interesting. If you do make the drive to some metro area and hit the bar, and you do meet someone you're interested in then you're still going to have to drive 130 miles one way every time you want to see them.

What happens if you do hit it off? How do you maintain a relationship where you have to drive 260 miles just to see a movie? Who moves? Who quits their job and relocates? the "friends" around that campfire start looking real good to you. And you start looking a LOT like a fox to anyone in the group who has any insecurities about the hand their holding! What's really bad about the entire situation, is that you may have absolutely no intention whatsoever of homing in on one of your friends partner. But you don't have to. Now that once a week phone call that you make to someone just to say "Hi" becomes suspect. Believe me, I know it's true because I am guilty of pointing my finger and raising the alarm about a fox being in the hen house myself.

My partner and I have been together for 5 years. Five GREAT years I might add. We've built a home together, and have had only one real argument in all this time. Still, when one of our friends who just happens to be extrememly attractive, was suddenly single again, I lost my perspective completely. She and my partner were very good friends, and called each other frequently. It never bothered me when the "fox" was dating someone. But all of sudden, through no fault of her own, I was feeling threatened. Then I made the biggest mistake of all. I shared my fears with another person in our little group of lesbians. I was looking for someone to tell me how much my partner loved me, and that I had nothing to worry about. Well, needless to say that wasn't what I got. What I got instead was a not so subtle reinforcement of my own insecurities. Yep, what I got was "You better be carefull, she's a homewrecker." Which of course she wasn't.

The problem is, this other friend was in the middle of a little insecurity crisis of her own. So my problem hit home with her, and PRESTO! The fox became a vicious animal who would surely ravage my happiness if not stopped. So I then made my next biggest mistake, I told my partner that I thought the fox was after her and that I had it on "good authority" that she was a homewrecker and couldn't be trusted. It made perfect sense to me. I was trying to protect our relationship, our home, the 5 years of building we had done to get where we were. What I forgot was that by accusing her, I was also disrespecting my own partner and our relationship. She told me in no uncertain terms that our friend was NOT hitting on her, and that she resented my even thinking that it would matter if she were. It meant I didn't trust her, and she was very angry at me. She was even MORE angry at the person who had reinforced my fears. Suddenly our little group wasn't so comfortable together anymore.

Small circles of friends can be a wonderful blessing. For lesbians who live in the country, away from any community support, their even more so. They are our life lines, our only source for a feeling of belonging and acceptance. But they are fragile things. You can be "cast out" for creating any friction, and then you are truly alone. You see, the dating pool is more like a little bird bath here. Bottom line is that there is always going to be a "fox in the henhouse". But you better wait until it kills a chicken to shoot it.

What does my bedroom have to do with anything?

2007-03-26T15:23:00.000-04:00

I am so tired of listening to the religious right argue that what goes on my bedroom justifies their attacks on my personal freedom and the right to be treated like every other American. What exactly is it about my life that is so scary to them? I mean, do they think that I lay around naked all day long having sex and trying to think of ways to turn little heterosexuals into gays or lesbians? Get real.

I’m a travel nurse. I work away from my home for months at a time. I do this to try and build a life and financial freedom with the person that I love, who happens to be a woman. I work in Emergency departments from California to New York, and have had to trade being at home with my family for making a living that can pull us up into the middle class. My partner is a police officer. She spends her time at work protecting the people that live in our community and risking her life to do it.

Our intimate times consist of conversations on the telephone for the most part, and then two or three times a year we get to spend a few weeks together. Even then, she’s working and I’m either working locally or preparing to leave on assignment again. We pass each other in the hallway between shifts, and when we’re lucky, we may actually catch an hour or two to sit on the couch and watch a movie or even talk face to face. When we do get to actually occupy the bed at the same time, we’re usually too tired to do anything other than sleep.
On the rare occasion when we do manage to have a sexually intimate moment, it’s behind closed doors and not at all like they make it look in heterosexual porn movies, which by the way seem obsessed with lesbian sex. We work hard. We pay taxes. We support our community. We watch out for our neighbors. So when the religious right says that we don’t have the right to have our relationship protected and respected the same as theirs, what does my bedroom have to do with it? If you ask me, they’re the ones who are obsessed with my sex life, not me. Why is that? I mean, honestly, I couldn’t care less what Falwell or Dobson do in their bedrooms. I don’t even want to know. Let’s face it, Jim Baker’s and Jimmy Swaggart’s sexual escapades were way more information than I needed in my busy life.

Mohler's Little Moment of Acceptance

2007-03-19T14:52:00.000-04:00

Changing you own opinions about something is at best, difficult. In some cases, where the opinion is a part of a deeply held belief system, it’s more than hard. It can challenge your views of the world, how you see yourself fitting into that world, and even your faith in God. It rarely occurs in one giant leap, where you cast aside beliefs that you’ve grown up with and latch on to an entirely new way of looking at something. Change happens in tiny moments of acceptance. These tiny moments build until you are faced with an obstacle of belief that no longer makes sense and can’t be justified based on what you know to be true. In that instant, you have to make a decision. You move forward, accepting that your views must change in order to include these new facts or beliefs, or you deny them and fall back on your old ideas.

We are beginning to see evidence of change even in the deepest recesses of our opposition. For such a long time, the conservative right has made a stand against science on many issues. They maintain that man emerged on the planet just a few thousand years ago, against all scientific evidence that man has evolved over the ages. They demand that creationism be taught as a SCIENCE in schools, not satisfied that it be discussed as a religious belief. They deny the evidence of the age of the planet and the universe itself, again in order to reconcile their belief that the biblical account of the creation of the heavens and the earth is fact, rather than a religious belief.

But recently, one well known conservative leader took a giant step of acceptance. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, admitted in an article earlier this month, that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. Now when those of us who are gay and lesbians read the full text of this article, it’s wildly offensive. He asserts that he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment, if such a technology were developed, to reverse homosexuality. However, you can get past the abrasiveness of that statement and look deeper, this article is actually a step forward in conservative thinking. It’s a moment of acceptance in a long road toward change.

Conservative religious groups have long maintained that being gay was a matter of choice, and that homosexuality could be “overcome” with counseling and prayer. Even when every respected psychological, psychiatric, and medical organization stated that not only was sexual identity not a matter of choice, but denial of ones identity was destructive to the person – the religious right ignored the science and found fringe practitioners to back their own views. This acceptance that sexual identity is a biologically predetermined part of every human being is a giant step toward change, although I doubt he sees it that way.

What will their justification be for persecuting us, when even they have to admit that we are exactly as God made us? If I am as God made me, how can what I am be something that God does not love? When they accept that I can’t change the fact that I was born a lesbian, have always been a lesbian (even before I knew exactly what that was), and have no more control over that part of myself than I do the color of my eyes and hair – then maybe they’ll accept the idea that I shouldn’t have to be treated as less of a human being because I accept who I was born to be.

Don’t get me wrong! I hate the comments he makes about treating fetus’ prior to birth in order to make them heterosexual. I hate it the same way I hate hearing people talk about predetermining fetal sex, or trying to genetically enhance a fetus. But, I do acknowledge that even his acceptance that there MIGHT be a biological basis for sexual identity is a step in our direction. No matter how much back stepping he’s trying to do now.

Ann Coulter (Can I use the "B" Word?)

2007-03-08T08:31:00.000-05:00

If you ever wanted to know just how deeply divided this country really is when it comes to the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to live their lives without discrimination, just do a google news search with the name “Ann Coulter” in it. You’ll see hundreds of items pop up with view points from both sides of the fence and a few that ride the fence as well. What’s interesting about this issue to me, is that it doesn’t represent a specific “issue” at all, it addresses how gay and lesbians are treated at a more basic level. It isn’t about our right to work (which many of us still don’t have – you can still be fired for being gay in a lot of states). It isn’t about our right to be at our partner’s bedside when they are ill (which many states have no provision for). It isn’t about our right to the same tax breaks that heterosexual couples get (even if they aren’t legally married). It isn’t about our right to anything at all, except respect as human beings.

Look recently at the use of the “N” word by a popular comedian in a club during his stand up routine. You didn’t see anyone defending his use of that word. But wait, the conservative right says that we aren’t allowed to compare the use of degrading terms used to humiliate a black person, and a degrading term used to humiliate a gay person. They say that Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot, can’t be compared to someone being called the N-word. The conservative right works very hard making sure no one publicly notes any similarities between the civil rights of a black person, and the civil rights of a gay person.

The American Daily web site has an article on it’s site by J. Matt Barber today. This article says “By comparison, homosexuality is rooted in disordered, unhealthy and changeable behaviors that have – prior to the onset of social post-modernism – been considered both immoral and repulsive. Being black is rooted in, well, being black.” That’s the kind of reasoning we’re dealing with. He’s basically saying that you shouldn’t discriminate against black people because they can’t help being born black, not because they are no different from him and deserve the same respect and dignity of life as he does without having to be compared to others as a measure of their worth. If you’d like to read the entire article you can find it at http://www.americandaily.com/article/17916. It would be a pretty funny read except for one thing, he’s not joking.

The conservatives are circling the wagons, with excuses that range from “it was only a joke” to “they call themselves faggots all the time.” Let me tell you something right now. I have never called myself or a friend a faggot. Never. Not once. I never would and I won’t put up with you calling me one either.

I hope these ridiculous, right wing, nut jobs just keep talking because no one can point out their bigotry better than they do themselves. It just amuses me at how upset they get when all we do is point it out to them. It’s a shame that using the “B” word to describe Ann Coulter isn’t an insult to her at all (No, not THAT “B” word) – Bigot!

Ann Coulter's "Faggot" Comment

2007-03-05T11:57:00.000-05:00

John Edward's may be too nice a guy. When asked about his take on Coulter, Edwards replied: "Don't have one. Don't have anything to say about her." I respect his ability to keep his opinion about her to himself, especially when she called him a "faggot". Of course she did it in a setting where she knew it was acceptable - The Conservative Political Action Conference. Making a gay or lesbian slur in that room is about as risky as using the "N" word at a KKK meeting. Not only did no one inside the room stand up and denounce the statement immediately, but there was laughter throughout the room. If there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind about how far away from a real understanding between the LGBT community and the conservative right, there shouldn't be now. The laughter in the room demonstrates the kind of people that the Conservative Political Action Conference respects enough to have presenting to them, and the kind of people they represent - Hate filled biggots

I on the other hand am not a particularly nice person in the face of comments that are directed at me with that kind of hate, and her use of the term may have been AIMED at Edwards, but it was directed at all of us in the Gay and Lesbian community. I find Ann Couter to be a fine representative of the CPAC, which is about as big an insult as I can think of. Now I want to watch where the CPAC throws their support, there my friends, is where the real story is. Where does all the money and influence that CPAC has to offer go? Which candidate or candidates share their "sense of humor"?

Lessons I'm Learning

2007-02-06T23:44:00.000-05:00

I’ve lost three people who were very close to me recently. One was my cousin, who died (young) of pneumonia. One was my friend, who lost his fight with cancer (also young). One was a colleague, who was killed in a car accident yesterday (and yes, he was young). As a Nurse working in the Emergency Department, I have seen death in all its myriad of disguises. I’ve seen tragic deaths, the ones that rip your guts out when you turn to the family in the hallway and tell them that a child is gone. I’ve seen reverent deaths, where someone who has lived a long and fulfilled life and faced the end of their days with a quiet calm that filled me with wonder and respect. I’ve seen death as a welcomed release from human suffering, and I’ve seen death pass itself off as an alternative to an unhappy life.

No matter what differences we all have, there is one thing that we all have in common. Death will come to us all. Having been a witness to it, I’ve learned a few things. Nothing earth shattering, or incredible. Just little things that I hope I can use to make my own days on earth mean a little more, and make my passing hurt a little less to those left behind.

The first thing that I’ve learned is acceptance. I’ve accepted the fact that I truly am a mortal human being who could die at any moment of any day, without notice and without time to “fix” anything I’ve left undone. It’s easy to say you accept death as a part of life, as a part of YOUR life. Truly grasping the undeniable truth of your own mortality is the key to making every day count. Tomorrow isn’t promised to any of us, so what you do today MATTERS.

The second thing that I’ve learned is that no matter when death comes, you’re almost never ready for it. There will be things left unsaid, things left undone. Even if you tell your partner “I love you” every time you leave their presence, you’ll still wish you could tell them one more time when that moment comes and you know you’ll never get the chance to do it. Life is a work in progress, so there will always be things not finished, not completed.

The third thing I’ve learned is that when death comes, how you feel about your life and the way you lived it, weighs on your mind. I’m not talking about religion, or faith, but something more basic and less demanding. How you feel about the way you used your time, the way you shared your life with others, and the way you gave mercy and compassion away weighs on your mind in the end. I’ve seen people of so many different faiths as they face their own, or their loved ones deaths. In that one moment, you can’t tell the difference between a Catholic, a Baptist, a Mormon, and a Jew except for the rituals of passing. The emotions are always the same. At the end of our days we all face death with only what we brought into this world, and what we made of our lives.

I hope I get struck by lightning someday walking down a beach and watching a gorgeous sunrise. I don’t want the opportunity to face death with the dignity I’ve seen others portray. I want to live my life as if it could happen at any moment, any second, and what I do right now, matters. Because, right now, may be all there is.

A Woman in the Whitehouse

2007-01-21T14:16:00.000-05:00

Well, she finally did it! Senator Hilary Clinton announced her candidacy for president of the United States. It wasn’t a surprise by any stretch of the imagination, everyone knew she would. The latest poll showing her way ahead of all of the other candidates in Democrats eyes would also indicate that most Democrats wanted her to do just that. She was at 41%, while her nearest competitor (Obama) was in the teens.

I am so looking forward to the debates and the campaign trail this year. I can’t wait to see this strong and capable woman show the world that not only is the United States ready for a woman in the White House, we have one who has more to bring to the table than just being female. Senator Clinton is a savvy politician, and she knows what it takes to win an election. She won’t be easily intimidated and because of previous campaigns and her high profile life, most of us have already had the chance to see what’s in her closet and put it to rest.

There’s no doubt that I’ll vote for whatever candidate that the Democrats put forward for president. I won’t vote for a republican, and I won’t waste my vote on a candidate that has no chance to win. Now more than ever we need our votes to count, and seeing a Democrat in the White House is a major step toward equality for us. I’ll vote for a Democrat in November, but I sure hope that Democrat will be Clinton. I’m ready to have a woman lead this country. Women have been underrepresented in top political positions for far too long, and it’s about time that we stepped out of the wings and onto the stage.

Father Mychal Judge – My most vivid 9/11 memory

2006-09-09T02:03:00.000-04:00

On 9/11/01, while I was sitting safely in my home watching CNN and thinking to myself, “how horrible” and “this can’t be happening”, Father Mychal Judge was already on his way to the Twin Towers with a group of firefighters. While others ran away, desperately trying to put as much distance between them and the doomed buildings, Father Judge made his way directly to the towers, where the firefighters he had ministered to, and cared so much for, were fighting their way into the buildings and were already beginning to die.

Almost immediately Father Judge found his way to a fallen firefighter who had been struck by a falling human body from the towers above, and knelt beside him to give the last rights. He then ran into the Lobby of the Tower 1 trying to help direct others out of and away from the building. He would die there moments later as debris from the collapse of Tower 2 would be blown into the Tower 1 lobby.

I still remember seeing the picture on the TV as a group of firefighters carried Father Judge’s body away, and even now that picture represents all of the deaths that occurred that day because it is the one image that I remember with clarity. A fallen American, lovingly carried by other Americans away from the WTC site. It was an image that would be sorrowfully repeated so many times later, as other brave hero’s of the NYFD and other uniformed services would be slowly found, and removed over the next months. Still, when I think of the heartbreak of 9/11, Father Judge being carried away by those he spent his life ministering to in times of need, is the image that I return to.

Father Judge’s story is one of triumph over adversity. If you have never taken the time to read about Father Mychal Judge, visit http://www.saintmychal.com/life01.htm . Father Judge was a gay man by orientation, and spent much of his earlier time helping those stricken with AIDS at a time when most people didn’t even want to be near them. He understood the conflicts that gay and lesbian Americans deal with in their personal and professional lives, and yet his sexual orientation didn’t define him, just as it should not be used to define us.

His death certificate lists him as victim #00001 of the World Trade Center attacks.

We have a lot in common, we two!

2006-08-05T04:54:00.000-04:00

As a travel nurse, I spend most of my time away from my home and my partner. It's a hard thing to be separated from the person you love, but we decided that reaching our financial goals was worth a little hardship, and that our relationship was solid enough to withstand the separation. We were right, our relationship has stood up to numerous tests over the past two years of being apart, but not without our ups and downs. We've done it, but it hasn't been easy.

I'm lucky enough to travel with another nurse, who lives in the same home town as I do. She's straight, as an arrow, and on the surface we have very little in common. She's very feminine, and has religious convictions that are in opposition to my lifestyle. She's a republican, I'm a democrat. She's a conservative, I'm a liberal. She's my friend, but we have the kind of relationship that allows us to be honest with each other, and still be close despite our differences. Even though the differences between us are staggering at times, we've also developed a deep understanding of the others feelings, and I respect her convictions, even though I disagree with them. She does the same.

The past few months have been difficult for both of us. You see, when you are 1600 miles away from your partner (or your spouse), little disagreements and tiny little fears can escalate into gigantic problems and staggering suspicions. Suddenly the weekend barbecue with friends that the two of you always attended, seems like nothing more than an opportunity for one of the single lesbians in the group to horn in on your partner. The fatigue in your partners voice from working too much, sounds like disinterest, and you start to worry. There's no opportunity to rekindle your intimacy, and so things snowball into something that has a life of its own. You might as well be a world away.

My friend and I discovered that we have more in common than we realized this week. She cried, afraid that her relationship with her husband was at risk. I cried, afraid that the distance between my partner and I was tearing us apart. We shared feelings about how vulnerable we felt, so far away from our loved ones. We laughed at how silly we felt admitting that we both had envisioned sultry seductress' out to take our love away. We were both living through the same situation, and experiencing it in almost the exact same way. I could see that she placed the same value on my relationship with my partner, as she placed on her marriage to her husband. We were two women, comforting each other, and trying to offer the other some sanity as our own minds tried to wander away into ridiculous jealousy.

It worked. She helped me get through my fears, and to realize that my partner had done nothing at all to cause me to feel insecure. I got grounded in reality again, before I put my foot in my mouth and accused my partner of something that I know she didn't, and wouldn't do. My friend says I did the same for her. It seems that by talking sense into the other, we each found some sense of our own. In the end, I discovered that we have a lot more in common than I thought we did. I also discovered that even though my friend is very conservative (I know she voted for Bush, she just won't admit it), and lives pretty far to the right, she is still a reasonable human being who doesn't make blanket judgments and respects my life and my feelings. We found common ground to stand on, my friend and I, and from this vantage point our differences don't seem so huge after all.

Playing the Religious Rights Game

2006-07-29T08:34:00.000-04:00

It’s not easy trying to win a war when you’re always on the defensive. The religious right has had us with our backs to the wall for so long, that it seems a natural position to be in. They keep throwing more and more blows, and we take a defensive stance and try to remain standing. I’m tired of it.

What if we played the game just as dirty as they do? They want to use the legislature and the courts to deny us our right to equality, why not use the legislature and the courts to fight right back? How about law suits against churches that amass huge amounts of wealth, and never pay a penny in taxes? Why should they be allowed to go without paying taxes when their funds aren’t used to feed the hungry, or house the homeless, but buy people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson designer suits, expensive homes, expensive cars, and to feed the campaign funds of other ultra right wing bigots?

We could lobby to introduce legislation to keep “creationism” and “intelligent design” out of the science classroom. Many of us don’t necessarily believe that it shouldn’t be taught, but then again, there are a lot of republicans out there who aren’t against gay marriage but still vote for candidates that are determined to see gays and lesbians have no rights at all.

What if we became just as politically active trying to keep religion “out” of the constitution and separated from government, as they are in their efforts to turn the United States into a theocracy? How do you think they would feel if instead of filing suits to try and achieve equality by bringing ourselves up to their level, we were filing suits to bring them down to where we live? You don’t want us to have protected rights as married couples? Fine, but you don’t get them either. Equal protection under the law doesn’t mean you have to let us get married, but it means that your rights, and mine, have to be the same.

My life long partner can’t collect my social security when I die? Fine, but neither can yours. We can’t pay less in taxes as a couple? Fine, but you don’t get to file jointly with your spouse either. I can’t marry the person of my choosing? Fine, then neither can you.

What if instead of playing on the defensive all the time, we did develop an agenda? What if that agenda was to attack, on every front that we could possibly find, the real enemy that we are facing and that is the extremists in the religious right? They are seeking to turn this country that was founded on religious freedom, into a theocracy that they get to define. If there was ever an “agenda” out there, the religious right has one, and they aren’t even trying to be secretive about it. They want gays and lesbians to be second class citizens. They want their view of how the universe was born taught as science. They want their definition of morality written as law. They want the constitution to reflect their views, and no one else’s. They want all this and more, and they want it now.

I’ve heard it said that it isn’t about whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. I’m not sure I agree with that statement in our case. They’re proving that by playing dirty, lying, manipulating data, and using fear and power to influence politicians and voters they CAN win. Granted, you don’t want to stoop to their level, but then guess what? They win.