REVISED: Things aren't Always as They Appear

Editorial Note: I received some harsh criticism from a stranger out in the webosphere regarding my assessment of this still photo. First, I'd like to comment that in my original article (still published below), I stated that my analysis could be wrong. It was, in part; the participants weren't waiting for the ceremony to begin.

Apparently this photo was captured from a video, where the National Anthem was performed at a September 16th Steak Fry. The video, as best as I can tell, was originally aired on ABC.com. It was the National Anthem which was preformed, not a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance (as the email propaganda suggested). It does indeed show Senator Barack Obama standing with his hands folded together while the anthem was sung. I'd also like to add, as a side-note, that the performer completely butchered the song, but I digress.

After watching the video, my evaluation hasn't changed much; however, what did change was my observation of Senator Obama being the only one on stage that actually attempted to sing along, while the others stood, at attention with their hands over their hearts (and lips sealed tightly). Many of those on stage fidgeted like children and stared-off into space. Is this proof that any one of them is unpatriotic? Hardly, including Senator Obama. I stand by my original assessment that Senator Obama is a patriot.

Many people place such importance and value on ritual and pomp and circumstance. I do not. What is truly important is what is in one's heart, and how one lives one's life, not simple gestures, or the lack thereof.

Original Article:
This photograph was sent to me by my very good friend, Shitski. Apparently this image is floating around on the web, basically suggesting that Senator Barack Obama is not patriotic. Are there really people out there that honestly believe that he would refuse to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance? Unfortunately, the answer is, yes.

The caption written above this photo, as it was originally sent to me, reads, "I had heard about this but a picture is definitely worth 1000 words! God save us!!!"; and, directly underneath read, "Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)......the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief????"

The person who wrote these comments seems to be a little confused. In one instance they refer to Senator Obama standing for the National Anthem and then claim the photo is proof that Senator Obama did not say the Pledge of Allegiance. Well, which is it? The National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance are two different things. This photo is a still image and can't show both at the same time. That would be impossible.

Therefore, this photo, along with the rhetoric, is simply political propaganda. One must use one's common sense (if one has any) before giving any credibility to this suggestion. If you also look closely enough, you can see several obvious things that debunk the hysteria. First off, it appears that the attendees were waiting for the ceremony to begin. Senator Clinton, along with Ruth Harkin are looking off to the side and Bill Richardson is staring ahead. This photo is only proof that Senator Obama was waiting patiently.

Also the fact that one has to make mention of Senator Obama's middle name, only shows one's ignorance and racism. I'm sure many understand the dangers of profiling and stereotyping. It's a scary world out there, when fear and prejudice form one's opinions.

Now, if I have my analysis wrong, and it is possible that I could, then not placing one's hand over the heart during the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem, for that matter, does not prove one's lack of patriotism.

Dictionary.com, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, defines a Patriot as: A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

If anyone has ever listened to Senator Obama speak, for even just a few minutes, then one would know without a doubt that not only has he devoted his life and career to his country, but he is also the epitome of a patriot.

Those who refuse to question, are just looking to spread rumors and inaccuracies. Ah, what importance does an education have?

Fred Thompson is out of Touch

Fred Thompson and the GOP are out of touch with today's views on civil unions for gay couples. After speaking at a New Hampshire dental benefits company on Monday, Republican Presidential candidate, Fred Thompson said he would "not be in support of that" when questioned about civil unions for gay Americans. He also told New Hampshire voters that recognition of same-sex marriage is a "judge-made controversy".

On January 1, 2008, civil unions for gay couples will be legal in the state of New Hampshire. Along with the new civil unions law, will come the legal recognition of same-sex unions from other states that allow it.

The employee of the dental benefits company, who questioned Thompson, later said that "I think he needs to do more homework on whatever state he's in and I don't think he did on that question". Edward Paul, the employee, is a registered independent and said he plans on voting in the Democratic Presidential primary.

According to public opinion polls dating back to 2004, the majority of Americans support civil unions. A more recent Gallop poll (in February 2005) indicates that 57% of respondents said they favor either same-sex marriage or civil unions, as opposed to 41% who said that they are against any kind of legal recognition.

A 2004 national election exit poll also showed that 60% of those surveyed favored legal protection for gay couples while only 37% opposed it.

Fred Thompson, as well as President Bush and many other social conservatives, like to denounce court decisions when the judicial system disagrees with their opinions. They chalk it up to "out-of-control activist judges"; however, our country was designed to create checks and balances by establishing three branches of government. The judicial branch is doing its job when making decisions of fairness, and ruling that certain laws are not constitutional. The court is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Fred Thompson is not the only Republican candidate to go against the grain of American opinion. All but one GOP contender, Rudy Giuliani, are against any legal protection for gay couples. Times have changed and so has public opinion on same-sex issues. It's time for a more modern and more inclusive government which protects all of its citizens, not just the majority of them.

New Yorkers Protest Iraq War

I just love a good protest-march, especially when I have a bird's-eye view from my apartment window. That's one of the things I love about living in New York. Everything goes on right here and I don't even have to leave my home to witness it.

On Saturday afternoon, October 27th, Bill and I were piddling around our apartment when we heard a very loud commotion coming from the street below. Right down on Broadway were mobs of people protesting the Iraq war. The chanting, the drum beats, and the energy emanating from the crowd stirred emotion. There is something about a crowd, coming together for a cause they believe in, that is extremely powerful; and, neither Bill nor I were immune from its emotional impact.

It just so happens that Bill and I were never for the Iraq war to begin with, and although a pull-out is now extremely complicated, ultimately, we still want our troops to return to their families and still want peace in the world.

Obviously, we are not alone in that feeling. Anti-war protesters organized a "bring our troops home" demonstration, on Saturday, that drew tens of thousands of New Yorkers together. Protesters marched in the rain, from Union Square to Foley Square in Manhattan. Many carried signs criticizing President Bush and his poor choices that have brought us to the current quagmire in Iraq. After reaching their destination in Foley Square, marchers partook in a peace fair.

This anti-war rally was just one of the many that took place around our country this weekend, marking the fifth-year anniversary of the Senate vote that authorized President Bush to go to war with Iraq.

The photograph above was taken by Bill, from our apartment window.

Highlighted Author: Armistead Maupin

Armistead Maupin is one of my all time favorite authors. His colorful and easily read novels are fun and escapist. His style and imagination make it easy to become absorbed into the lives of the decadent characters he has brought to life.

He was born in Washington D.C. in 1944, but grew up in Raleigh, NC. He was transplanted to San Francisco in 1971 to work for the Associated Press. Later he became famous writing for the San Francisco Chronicle, in which he had a daily column. His newspaper work was a series of fictional writings based on real-life characters he came across while living in San Francisco. This column eventually evolved into his first novel.

Although the subject matter he writes about is of an adult nature, he very clearly is appealing to a mainstream audience. If you haven't read any of his work, start out with the original novel that made him famous, Tales of the City.

The story is set in San Francisco in the early 1970s when a very young and naive Mary Ann Singleton decides to stay-on after a vacation to The City by the Bay. Fate brings Mary Ann to a funky apartment house run by an eclectic landlady. A wonderful cast of characters is slowly fed into the story and cleverly brings you on a ride of mystery, sex, and [looking back now] the seemingly innocent drugs of the 1970s.

This book is sure to make you a life-long fan of Armistead Maupin. And if reading isn't your thing, try the Tales of the City miniseries which first aired on PBS in the early to mid 90s. This made-for-TV production actually does the book justice. It starred Olympia Dukakis, Donald Moffat, Billy Campbell, Thomas Gibson, Parker Posey, and the yet to be "discovered" Laura Linney.

If you choose to watch, as opposed to read your way through this story, make sure you rent the original series not the poorly done follow-up. Tales of the City is a three disc package, containing 6 episodes and runs approximately 300 minutes. It's worth your time in entertainment.

Other novels by Armistead Maupin include: More Tales of the City, Further Tales of the City, Babycakes, Significant Others, Sure of You, Maybe the Moon, The Night Listener, Michael Tolliver Lives.

I'll Be Back

I'm taking a few days off to spend some time with Bill. I'll be back soon. In the meantime, please feel free to look around, read, comment and vote on the current poll I have posted. Also, please tell your politically/socially conscious friends about my blog. I'd like to spread the word to increase my web traffic. Oh, and if you want to support my advertisers, please do. They are only a click away!

2008 Presidential Candidates on GLBT Issues

Know where the top four 2008 Presidential candidates, from each party, stand on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) issues. According to National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Inc. each candidate is relatively consistent, on GLBT issues, with their respective party's overall stance; there are few exceptions. The Democrats tend to support the GLBT community on most issues; whereas, the Republicans tend to not to be as supportive.

The top 2008 Presidential candidates were identified, by me, from information gathered by the national media outlets. Based on polling figures and total campaign money raised I choose the top fours candidates for each party to be my focus. In my opinion these following candidates have the best chance at representing their party in the 2008 Presidential General Election (this list is debatable).

The top four Democratic candidates are: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson.

The top four Republican candidates are: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson.

On the Democratic side, it is worth mentioning that two candidates, not listed above, are the most supportive of the GLBT community but were disqualified from my list because of their low chance at representing the Democratic Party; they are Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Both of these candidates support full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

None of the top four candidates representing either party supports same-sex marriage. All of the Democratic candidates support civil unions; whereas, only one Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, supports this measure.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is currently being voted on by Congress. This bill would make it illegal to discriminate in the work-place based on sexual orientation as well as being transgendered. Unfortunately, some in Congress are attempting to modify ENDA to remove protection for the transgendered. Each Democratic candidate supports ENDA, with the inclusion of the transgendered. None of the Republicans fully support ENDA as currently written. Rudy Giuliani supports the bill to include sexual orientation but without protection for the transgendered.

Once again all of the Democratic candidates support lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the military. None of the Republican candidates clearly support this policy. It is unclear where Rudy Giuliani stands on this issue.

In regard to same-sex adoption rights, each Democratic candidate is supportive, while it is unclear where most of the Republicans stand; Mitt Romney is the only Republican who has outwardly opposed gay-adoption.

Keep in mind that most legislation is first initiated in Congress. Each bill must then be passed by both houses before it makes its way to the White House for a signature from the President. So based on the information above, it is important to the GLBT community to vote Democratic for both Congress and President. Without having support from the President on each of these issues, any legislation passed in Congress is subject to a veto. It is our time to make progress on the issues important to the GLBT community. Please educate yourself on where each candidate stands on the issues and then vote.

Source: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Inc.

For detailed information on each candidate's GLBT stance please refer to: www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf

The Gay Gene

Is homosexuality genetic? The short and simple answer is, yes. At least, without a doubt, I know it is for me. And since all humans are 99.9% genetically identical, then I'm sure homosexuality is genetic for others as well; however, just to be sure there is a new federally funded study being conducted by Chicago based researchers.

Previous research has been done seeking to answer the same question. Many of these other studies in the past have proven mostly inconclusive; however, evidence shows that homosexuality tends to "run" in families. This does not prove that genetics is involved, since many extended families share similar practices and patterns (nurture) in child-rearing, which some say could influence sexual orientation.

A study published in 1993, found that gay brothers share genetic markers in a region on the X Chromosome. The new study, involving 1000 pairs of gay brothers, is now seeking to expand on the previous research by pursuing the discovery of the same genetic markers, identified in the past, as well as others that might exist. The new study is not designed to explain any genetic role in behavior, but only to find identifying markers.

It is suspected by researchers that there are several genes that contribute to homosexuality and not just one. Some also feel that a combination of genetics along with psychological and social influences is at the center of this mystery.

Any time the subject of homosexuality is brought into the public sphere controversy is sure to follow, and this study is no different. Many in the gay community feel that if it is discovered that genetics plays a role, then the court system would be more inclined to rule against discrimination; however, many also feel that a genetic explanation could actually have the exact opposite outcome, leading to prenatal testing and even abortions to terminate homosexual fetuses.

There are some "researchers" that tend to be biased in their work in order to support their religious beliefs. Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and evangelical Christian, co-authored a study which concludes that gays are able to "convert" from homosexuality through prayer and counseling. Jones admitted that he does not hold a neutral opinion on the subject. His research involved 98 gays who were seeking to change their orientation through a group known as Exodus International, a Christian group in the business of "gay conversions".

As of now the scientific jury is still out on the subject, but from one with first-hand knowledge it is clear to me that people are born being gay. To not have a genetic explanation suggests that homosexuality is a choice. If that is the case then, in principle, straight people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex and therefore, could also choose to be attracted to the same sex. In my opinion that is not likely.

Also, why would anyone choose to be gay when clearly there is much discrimination against gays in this world, making it horribly unbearable for many. And, if prayer alone could change one's sexual orientation then my prayers should have been answered years ago when I was just an adolescent. Those that claim they have changed through prayer are only repressing their truth and fighting the cards which nature has dealt to them.

Nurture plays no role in forming one's sexual orientation. As far back as my toddler years, I have recollections of my thoughts, dreams, and feelings pinpointing my early homosexual orientation. As a very young child I was physically attracted to men. I was always drawn to masculine features such as strong noses, sideburns, Adam's apples, receding hairlines and the muscularity and hairiness of the male body. As most young children have crushes on older adults, many on their teachers, I did too; but, my crushes were always, without exception, on men. This was and always has been natural (nature) for me, and no doubt, for many others.

For more information on this new study please refer to the following website: www.gaybros.com

Under-Cover Gay Priest

Ah, the Catholic Church, another fine homophobic institution, where pedophiles and self-loathing, closeted homosexuals hide behind the sanctity of priesthood.

A Vatican official was suspended after he was caught, on hidden camera, making advances toward a young man. Monsignor Tommaso Stenico was also anonymously interviewed about his gay sex-life on an Italian television program. Monsignor Stenico, as well as other priests were interviewed with their faces obscured and their voices altered, in an effort to hide their identity. Unfortunately for the Monsignor, Vatican officials recognized the Monsignor's office in which the interview had been conducted.

In the television interview, Monsignor Stenico was quoted as saying that he "didn't feel he was sinning" by having sex with gay men. Later when it was discovered that his identity had been revealed, he denied that he was gay and explained his earlier words and actions; the Monsignor said that he pretended to be gay and often visited gay chat-rooms as part of his work as a psychoanalyst. He claimed that his under-cover work was an effort to gather information about "those who damage the image of the Church with homosexual activity."

Mind you, his under-cover work was never sanctioned by the Catholic Church, nor was the Church ever aware of it. The Monsignor's secret life as an under-cover spy for the Church just doesn't hold water. His excuse is truly laughable. How stupid does he think his superiors are?

Fortunately or unfortunately for the Monsignor, and for those who feel the need to live in the closet, their lies are often exposed. Times like this might be devastating at first, for someone living a lie, but this is actually a wonderful opportunity for closeted people to start living honestly and proudly. Homophobia and many religious teachings drive gay people into feeling shame and ultimately into denial and certainly into the closet.

Interpretation of these Biblical teachings, that homosexual activity is a sin, is nothing more than the Church's attempt at controlling society for a specific desired outcome. As a matter of fact, this is what the rules of religion, "sin", is all about, keeping control over society. Granted, many rules make sense, such as, thou shalt not kill. This is a good one; however, many "rules" of the Bible have lost their ancient-day justification, if you are even inclined to take these "rules" at face-value.

When interpreting the Bible, one should keep a few things in mind: 1) The Bible was written by humans. God did not whisper into anyone's ear back in those days or even in these days, as some would have you believe; 2) Translation from the original language in which the Bible was written, into our language, loses much of the original meaning; 3) Interpretation of the Bible is often what someone else wants you to believe for whatever reasons they might have.

Thank you for bearing with me while I explained my belief of Biblical interpretation. Now please consider that these human misconceptions wreak much havoc on the human psyche, leading many to live in denial and in agony. And this is all for what? To control behavior. Indeed it seems like it does just that. Unfortunately, it also causes serious problems which can sometimes lead to devastating consequences such as teen suicide, for example.

The Catholic Church, and society, should wake up. We should question authority and the religious teachings we are spoon-fed. Don't take someone's interpretation of the Bible at face-value. Learn for yourself and live honestly and openly. In the meantime, we'll continue hearing about these humorous, however sad, and sometimes devastating anecdotes.

Denial isn't Just a River in Egypt . . .

or the longest river in the world, it also runs very deep through Senator Larry Craig. Now Senator Craig (R), from Idaho, will be filing an appeal on a judge's ruling that he can't withdraw his guilty plea; for those of you who might not remember, the senator pled guilty in August to disorderly conduct for soliciting an under-cover cop for gay sex in a Minneapolis airport men's room. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea and was unsuccessful.

In addition to his appeal, he is also now going on a media blitz. From local news interviews to national prime time shows, Senator Craig and his wife are attempting to do damage control.

In an interview that will air on Tuesday night's "Matt Lauer Reports" and again on Wednesday's "Today" show, Senator Craig reportedly said it was a tough decision not to tell anyone about the bust. "I didn't want to embarrass my wife, my kids, Idaho and my friends," Craig said. "And I wrestled with it a long while. ...I should have told my wife. I should have told my kids. And most importantly, I should have told counsel."

If you care, about this in the slightest way, please do not let Senator Craig snow you. He has been denying rumors that he is gay for more than 20 years. Now that he was actually busted in a men's room, he continues to deny the facts. He attempts to hide behind the "beard" of his wife and his "conservative values". The truth is he is a not-so-closeted (anymore) homosexual with homophobic tendencies. He has worked very hard at pushing anti-gay legislation in the Senate, deeply damaging those of us in the gay community, while living a double life.

As tired and bored as I am with Senator Craig, it is my obligation to point out his hypocrisy and denial because of the damage he has created for my personal legal rights as a gay American. I'm willing to "live and let live" if Senator Craig and his former friends in the conservative Republican club are too. Until then, I will continue to stand-up for equal rights for the gay community and expose hypocrites, even if that means writing more about Senator Craig.

Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights

Last week a new grass-roots movement began; it's called Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights. As with other social movements in our nation's history, the gay community is actively reaching out and seeking support from its allies in the straight community. Just as white liberals championed civil rights for the black community in the 1960s, and as men joined the cause with feminists in the 1970s, straight friends are standing up for their gay counterparts in 2007.

Two Texas based organizations, Soulforce and Atticus Circle, began this movement by recruiting allies from the straight community to hold vigils across the nation from October 7-13. Straight community leaders, in towns from California through Alabama and up to Maine, held over-night vigils to express their support and to show their elected officials that equality is not just a gay issue but an American issue.

If you are a straight friend of the gay community, you too can get involved. Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights is recruiting volunteers to organize next year's event. Again, in towns across the country more vigils will be held. You can become a state organizer or just join in to show your support. For more information on this historic movement, please refer to the following website: www.sevenstraightnights.org

Complications of Same-sex Divorce

". . . until divorce do you part". Well, unfortunately it can happen to the best of us, straight or gay. Divorce can be a very messy, complicated matter, but for those in the gay and lesbian community it can be even worse. Can you imagine?

With the advent of gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts, now comes the unpleasant business of gay divorce. A lesbian couple, from the state of Rhode Island, went to the state of Massachusetts to marry back in 2004. Their marriage is valid in the state of Massachusetts because their home state of Rhode Island does not prohibit same-sex marriage. Rhode Island hasn't yet granted them either. So mind you, the marriage is only valid in Massachusetts. Since the couple resides in Rhode Island, how do they get divorced? Rhode Island would have to first recognize a same-sex marriage, in order to grant a same-sex divorce.

If Rhode Island doesn't grant the divorce, they could apply for a divorce in the state of Massachusetts, but first at least one of the women would have to move to Massachusetts and become a resident. This is not a practical solution. Up-rooting one's life and moving to another state is not an easy task. One would have to consider career, income, family, housing and all of the costs associated with a move such as that.

To make matters even more complicated, now enter the special interest groups. Yes, don't forget about them. These groups don't want same-sex marriage and, as crazy as it sounds, they also don't want same-sex divorce. The problem for them is that it already exists. The problem for the gay community is that these groups will fight the issue all of the way.

An attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a group opposed to same-sex marriage as well as same-sex divorce, said "Rhode Island should not allow same-sex divorce to become a back-door entrance to the recognition of same-sex marriage". This is what they are so concerned about. Like I stated before, Rhode Island would first have to recognize a same-sex marriage in order to grant a same-sex divorce. This would add one more state to the small list of states validating same-sex marriage. This would bring the growing list to a total of: two. None-the-less, the Alliance Defense Fund, as well as other groups, have already filed their own briefs in this case.

The Rhode Island Family Court judge who received the same-sex divorce case, from the couple, has asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine if he has the authority to hear the case. Now the issue lies in the hands of the state's highest court. Depending on its decision, the lower family court might be able to make a ruling on the case.

Once again, we wait in limbo; however, let's not lose sight of the real matter here. The fate of a real, legitimate couple is at stake.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- Update

If you read my post dated September 13, 2007, then you know that a small group of Democrats and Republicans were working on legislation to end work-place discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity. This bill is known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). If you haven't had the opportunity to read that post, please take a couple of minutes and look it over (you can access it through the September archive link at my blog's home-page).

During the last week of September, House leaders announced that they would change the wording of ENDA to only include sexual orientation, therefore, omitting gender identity. The House leaders claimed that they would not have enough votes to advance the original bill as it had been written.

The Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRC), an important organization working for total equality, has expressed that they are "profoundly disappointed by this move". Since 2004 HRC's policy has been to only support civil rights legislation that includes gender identity. Just recently HRC had seen success in their effort to pass a hate crimes bill, including sexual orientation as well as gender identity (known as the Smith-Kennedy Hate Crimes Amendment, a.k.a. The Matthew Shepard Act).

So the contradictory message one might take from Congress is that it's not okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians but sometimes it is okay to discriminate against citizens with gender identity issues. This kind of thinking just doesn't make sense. I suppose it's becoming more acceptable to be gay but huge taboos still exist for those who know in their soul that they were born in the wrong body. Simply put it's all right to fire some one who is transgendered.

This year in Largo Florida the City Manager, Steve Stanton, was fired after he announced that he would be undergoing a sex change operation. This dedicated employee, husband and father, was City Manager of Largo for 14 years. He was a popular public figure and well respected in his position until he made his announcement.

The decision, taken by Steve Stanton, to undergo gender reassignment surgery was not made very lightly. When someone desires to change their gender, there is a long process involving extensive psychological counseling. A decision like this is drawn out over a long period of time for a reason. Once some one has changed their gender there is no reversal of the process, so great lengths are taken to make sure a decision like this is truly what the person desires/needs to continue living. Although this process involves a choice, for some one truly gender-misidentified there really isn't a choice if they want to continue living; it's truly a matter of life and death for many.

Stanton must have agonized over his obvious destiny, to under-go surgery, for some time. Can you imagine the anxiety and pain he must have gone through when he realized that he could no longer live as a man? Put yourself in his shoes when he had to confront his wife and eventually his child. Then, because of his career in public life, he would also have to literally go public with his decision.

As a personal note, I would like to disclose that I grew up very close to Largo Florida and went to elementary school in that town. I have strong ties to Largo as many of my childhood friends still live there. And boy, am I ashamed of that town.

Going public basically became a modern day town-square stoning in Largo. On one dark night back in February of this year, city commissioners and the town's people gathered for a four hour meeting to decide Stanton's fate. About 60 members from the First Baptist Church of Indian Rocks turned up to voice their hate and bigotry against Stanton. And the power of the church won. I am sure they are mighty proud of themselves. Steve Stanton was fired for being honest about who he is and how he was born.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must also make it known that my sister and my niece were once members of the First Baptist Church of Indian Rocks, the same church that sent delegates to the commissioners' meeting that ultimately decided to fire Stanton. And, I too attended a few "worship" services at the same church. Filing out of church on a Sunday afternoon, I always left with the same feeling of despair, I was doomed to Hell. Ultimately, I decided that I could not continue attending this church if I were to live sanely, honestly and openly about my own sexuality. As short-lived as my attendance was at the First Baptist Church of Indian Rocks, it was clear to me that I certainly did not belong.

Largo too made it clear to Stanton that he did not belong. Fear and prejudice come out of not understanding those who are different. And, this is why the United States of America must protect people like me and Steve from discrimination through legislation like ENDA.

HRC has successfully convinced Congress to delay taking action on ENDA until later this month. This delay creates an opportunity for U.S. citizens to contact their representatives and make it known that the bill should move forward with the inclusion of gender identity. HRC has a link that makes it very easy for someone to contact Congress in support of the original ENDA bill, including gender identity. I urge you to use it and support this measure. Whether you are clear about where you stand on this issue or not, it's the right thing to do. Please let's stop discrimination in this country because of misunderstanding those who are different from us.

Please click on the link below to send your message of support, for ENDA.
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/enda

Hypocritical Senator Still Guilty

The hypocrite, also known as Senator Larry Craig (R) from Idaho, is still a guilty man, a Senator and a hypocrite. If that weren't bad enough, he's also not a man of his word; time will tell if this will impact the Republicans' chances at keeping The White House in 2008.

Are you tired of this story yet? If you answered yes, then you're not alone. The Republican Party is pretty tired of it too. But Senator Craig still won't go away. With that in mind, then maybe I should also label him stubborn and arrogant as well.

If you have been keeping up with this story then you should know that a judge, deciding on whether or not to allow Senator Craig to withdraw a guilty plea from his arrest in a sex sting operation at a Minneapolis airport restroom, was set to rule on this case. And, he did. The verdict: Senator Craig is not permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The implications: are many.

The first implication in this ruling is that Senator Craig is still guilty of disorderly conduct, after soliciting an under-cover-cop, in a Minneapolis airport men's room.

Promising to step-down, if it was ruled that he could not withdraw his guilty plea, Senator Craig is now not willing to keep his word. As of Thursday, Senator Craig announced that he would stay on until the end of his term in January 2009. This makes it more difficult for the Republican Party to tout itself as the party of family values, as they have done for many years.

Keep in mind that the Republicans have been mired in scandal lately, including that of Mark Foley with under-age male pages, as well as that of married Louisiana Representative David Vitter's involvement with a prostitute. Other immoral dealings, not involving sex, brought down Republicans Tom Delay (TX), Randy "Duke" Cunningham (CA), and Bob Nye (OH); their sins mostly involved corruption ranging from illegal campaign finance to bribery and tax evasion.

Now Craig's decision can possibly loom over the Republicans during the 2008 Presidential election. This is one more reminder that the Republicans can no longer be considered the moral party. I'm certainly not implying that the Democrats are free of scandal; however, the Democrats are not known to be self-righteous when so embroiled in corruption.

Another implication is that Craig's homophobic voting record, as hypocritical as it is, implies that he will continue to vote against any gay rights legislation, especially now that he has something to prove. We just don't need another anti-gay vote in Congress.

So now the question is, will the recent corruption of the Republican Party bring their White House rule to an end? It should, because if it doesn't then the Republicans, themselves, will be hypocritical in that they have accused the Democrats of being immoral and have used that against them to stay in power. The moral of the story here is, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Playing the Christianity Card

Why, John McCain, why? Enough is enough with playing the Christianity card.

Let me make this caveat before I continue: I have nothing against Christianity. I was raised as a Catholic and dabbled in other Christian denominations before coming to peace with my own belief system (which shall remain private at this time); however, we [the United States of America] are not a country of one faith. Therefore, we are not a Christian nation.

Which brings me back to John McCain. Senator John McCain (R), of Arizona, is running for the Republican Presidential nominee of 2008. He isn't and hasn't always been supported by the Christian right, a very powerful voice in politics. With that in mind, John McCain has been on a media blitz lately promoting his Christian faith.

He was raised in the Episcopal Church which tends to lean more liberal. However, on his recent "Christian Presidential nominee" tour, McCain has been telling his audiences that he is a Baptist. Some sharp individuals have questioned the discrepancy. To clarify he is now saying that, although he was raised as an Episcopalian, he has attended the North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years. To make it clear he said, "I am a Christian". Keep in mind that he has not yet been baptized in the Baptist Church. He doesn't want to get baptized during the presidential race because he said, "it might appear as if I was doing something that I otherwise wouldn't do."

But with all of this talk of Christianity, that is exactly what he is doing (doing something that he otherwise wouldn't do). Case in point: In an interview with Beliefnet, published on Saturday, McCain said he would prefer a Christian president over someone of a different faith and stated that it is "an important part of our qualifications to lead."

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles . . . personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. He also added that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

What? Is he serious? What country am I living in? And, what does someone's personal religious belief have to do with leading our country?

I think someone needs a civics lesson, and it's not me. Declaring a country of one faith is in principle, the same thing as having a Muslim nation. I might not have been the best student when I was younger, but I don't recall any reference to Jesus in the U.S. Constitution. What I do remember, from my government classes for certain, is that there is a very distinct separation of Church and State.

So what is McCain's motive for making such ridiculous declarations? He wants to appeal to the Christian right. Although, the Republicans have several nominees that tend to be more socially conservative, it is known that right-wing Christians still have not found a Republican nominee who they feel comfortable endorsing; So McCain is trying to compete with the other Republican nominees to stand out as the Christian choice.

After having our current Evangelical President in office for almost seven years, it is time to stop pandering to the Christian right and get back to the business of running one of the best democracies in the world. Enough is enough with the personal agendas!